Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reprogramando La Computadora Bio Humana
Reprogramando La Computadora Bio Humana
All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are programmed biocomputers. None of us
can escape our own nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing more,
nothing less.
Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a limited set of programs. Some of these are built
in. In the simpler forms of life the programs were mostly built in from genetic codes to fully formed adultly reprodu-
cing organisms. The patterns of function, of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of adaptation
to slow environmental changes and of passing on the code to descendants.
Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel computer controlling the structurally lower
levels of the nervous system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its faster adaptation to a
rapidly changing environment began to appear. Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years,
a critical size cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new capability emerged: learning to learn.
-John C. Lilly. M.D.
Also by John C. Lilly, M.D.
THE MIND OF THE DOLPHIN
MAN AND THE DOLPHIN
THE CENTER OF THE CYCLONE
JOHN C. LILLY M . D. is a graduate of the California I Institute of Technology and received his Doctorate in Medicine from the
University of Pennsylvania in 1942. He has worked extensively in various research fields of science, including biophysics,
neurophysiology, electronics, and neuroanatomy. Dr. Lilly has done many years of study and research on solitude, isolation, and
confinement and is a qualified psychoanalyst. He spent twelve years working on research on dolphinhuman relationships including
communications and two years at Esalen Institute, Big Sur, California, as a group leader, resident, and associate in residence. Recently
he spent eight months in Arica, Chile, investigating and participating in the Arica Training Group of Oscar Ichazo, the Master of a
modern esoteric school in the mystical tradition.
PROGRAMMING AND METAPROGAMMING IN THE HUMAN BIOCOMPUTER
THEORY AND EXPERIMENTS
JOHN C . LILLY, M.D.
THE JULIAN PRESS, INC., PUBLISHERS
New York
All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
Copyright 1967, 1968 by John C. Lilly, M.D.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 7379777
Reissued in revised format, 1972, by
The Julian Press, Inc., Publishers
150 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10011
PDF by x7x_x7x, contact email: x7x_x7x@shroomery.org, 2011
Based on a series of Seminars given at the Department of Psychiatry, Schools of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, University of
California at Los Angeles, University of Minnesota; at the Medical Seminar, Edgewood Arsenal; and at the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, in 1966.
Manufactured in the United States of America Design & Composition by Freda Browne, New York
Foreword to Second Edition
This work has a curious history. It was written as a final summary report to a government agency (National Institute
of Mental Health) concerning five years of my life work (the agency paid my salary for the five years).
It was conceived from a space rarer these days than it was then: the laws suspending scientific interest, research,
involvement and decisions about dlysergic acid diethyl amide tartate were passed just as this particular work was
completed; the researchers were inadequately consulted (put down, in fact). The legislators composed laws in an
atmosphere of desperation. The national negative program on LSD was launched; LSD was the big scare, on a par
with War, Pestilence, and Famine as the destroyer of young brains, minds and fetuses.
In this atmosphere (1966-1967) Programming and Metaprogramming in The Human Biocomputer was written. The
work and its notes are dated from 1964 to 1966. The conception was formed in 1949, when I was first exposed to
computer design ideas by Britton Chance. I coupled these ideas back to my own software through the atmosphere of
my neurophysiological research on cerebral cortex. It was more fully elaborated in the tank isolation solitude and
confinement work at NIMH from 1953 to 1958, run in parallel with the neurophysiological research on the rewarding
and punishing systems in the brain. The dolphin research was similarly born in the tank, with brain electrode results
as parents in the further conceptions.
While I was writing this work, l was a bit too fearful to express candidly in writing the direct experience, uninterpre-
ted. I felt that a group of thirty persons' salaries, a large research budget, a whole Institute's life depended on me
and what I wrote. If I wrote the data up straight, I would have rocked the boats of several lives (colleagues and fami-
ly) beyond my own stabilizer effectiveness threshold, I hypothesized.
Despite my precautionary attitude, the circulation in 1967 of this work contributed to the withdrawal of research funds
in 1968 from the research program on dolphins by one government agency. I heard several negative stories regar-
ding my brain and mind, altered by LSD. At this point I closed the Institute and went to the Maryland Psychiatric
Research Center to resume LSD research under government auspices. I introduced the ideas in work to the MPRC
researchers and l left for the Esalen Institute in 1969.
At Esalen my involvement in direct human gut to gut communication and lack of involvement in administrative
responsibility brought my courage to the sticking place. Meanwhile, Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Truck Catalog
(Menlo Park, Calif.) reviewed the work in the Whole Earth Catalog from a mimeographed copy I had given W. W.
Harmon of Stanford for his Sufic purposes. Stewart wrote me asking for copies to sell. l had 300 printed photo offset
from the typed copy. He sold them in a few weeks and asked permission to reprint on newsprint an enlarged version
at a lower price. Skeptical about salability, I agreed. Book People, Berkeley, arranged the reprinting. Several
thousand copies were sold.
I had written the report in such a way that its basic messages were hidden behind a heavy long introduction desig-
ned to stop the usual reader. Apparently once word got out, this device no longer stalled the interested readers.
Somehow the basic messages were important enough to enough readers so that the work acquired an unexpected
viability. Thus it seems appropriate to reprint it in full.
On several different occasions, I have been asked to rewrite this work. One such start at rewrite ended up as ano-
ther book. (The Center of the Cyclone, The Julian Press, Inc., New York, 1972.) Another start is evolving into my
book number five (Simulations of God: A Science of Belief). It seems as if this older work is a seminating source for
other works and solidly resists revision. To me it is a thing separate from me, a record from a past space, a doorway
into new spaces through which I passed and cannot return.
J. C. L.
February 7, 1972
Los Angeles, California
Preface to Second Edition
All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are programmed biocomputers. No one of us
can escape our own nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing more,
nothing less.
Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a limited set of programs. Some of these are
builtin. The structure of our nervous system reflects its origins in simpler forms of organisms from sessile protozoans,
sponges, corals through sea worms, reptiles and protomammals to primates to apes to early anthropoids to huma-
noids to man. In the simpler basic forms, the programs were mostly builtin: from genetic codes to fully formed orga-
nisms adultly reproducing, the patterns of function of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of
adaptation to slow environmental changes, of passing on the code to descendants.
As the size and complexity of the nervous system and its bodily carrier increased, new levels of programmability
appeared, not tied to immediate survival and eventual reproduction. The builtin programs survived as a basic
underlying context for the new levels, excitable and inhibitable, by the overlying control systems. Eventually, the
cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the
nervous system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its faster adaptation to a rapidly changing
environment began to appear. Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a critical size of
cortex was reached. At this new level of structure, a new capability emerged: learning to learn.
When one learns to learn, one is making models, using symbols, analogizing, making metaphors, in short, inventing
and using language, mathematics, art, politics, business, etc. At the critical brain (cortex) size, languages and its
consequences appear.
To avoid the necessity of repeating learning to learn, symbols, metaphors, models each time, I symbolize the under-
lying idea in these operations as metaprogramming. Metaprogramming appears at a critical cortical size-the cerebral
computer must have a large enough number of interconnected circuits of sufficient quality for the operations of meta-
programming to exist in that biocomputer.
Essentially, metaprogramming is an operation in which a central control system controls hundreds of thousands of
programs operating in parallel simultaneously. This operation in 1972 is not yet done in manmade computers-
metaprogramming is done outside the big solidstate computers by the human programmers, or more properly, the
human metaprogrammers. All choices and assignments of what the solidstate computers do, how they operate, what
goes into them are still human biocomputer choices. Eventually, we may construct a metaprogramming computer,
and turn these choices over to it.
When I said we may be our programs, nothing more, nothing less, I meant the substrate, the basic substratum under
all else, of our metaprograms is our programs. All we are as humans is what is builtin and what has been acquired,
and what we make of both of these. So we are one more result of the program substrate-the selfmetaprogrammer.
As out of several hundreds of thousands of the substrate programs comes an adaptable changing set of thousands
of metaprograms, so out of the metaprograms as substrate comes something else-the controller, the steersman, the
programmer in the biocomputer, the selfmetaprogrammer. In a well organized biocomputer, there is at least one
such critical control metaprogram labeled I for acting on other metaprograms and labeled me when acted upon by
other metaprograms. I say at least one advisedly. Most of us have several controllers, selves, selfmetaprograms
which divide control among them, either in time parallel or in time series in sequences of control. As I will give in
detail later, one path for selfdevelopment is to centralize control of one's biocomputer in one selfmetaprogrammer,
making the others into conscious executives subordinate to the single administrator, the single superconscient
selfmetaprogrammer. With appropriate methods, this centralizing of control, the elementary unification operation, is a
realizable state for many, if not all biocomputers.
Beyond and above in the control hierarchy, the position of this single administrative selfmetaprogrammer and his
staff, there may be other controls and controllers, which, for convenience, I call supraself metaprograms. These are
many or one depending on current states of consciousness in the single selfmetaprogrammer. These may be perso-
nified as if entities, treated as if a network for information transfer, or realized as if self traveling in the Universe to
strange lands or dimensions or spaces. If one does a further unification operation on these supraself metaprograms,
one may arrive at a concept labeled God, the Creator, the Starmaker, or whatever. At times we are tempted to pull
together apparently independent supraself sources as if one. I am not sure that we are quite ready to do this
supraself unification operation and have the result correspond fully to an objective reality.
Certain states of consciousness result from and cause operation of this apparent unification phenomenon. We are
still general purpose computers who can program any conceivable model of the universe inside our own structure,
reduce the single selfmetaprogrammer to a micro size, and program him to travel through his own model as if real
(level 6, Satori +6: Lilly, 1972). This property is useful when one steps outside it and sees it for what it is-an immen-
sely satisfying realization of the programmatic power of one's own biocomputer. To overvalue or to negate such
experiences is not a necessary operation. To realize that one has this property is an important addition to one's
selfmetaprogrammatic list of probables.
Once one has control over modelling the universe inside one's self, and is able to vary the parameters satisfactorily,
one's self may reflect this ability by changing appropriately to match the new property.
The quality of one's model of the universe is measured by how well it matches the real universe. There is no
guarantee that one's current model does match the reality, no matter how certain one feels about the high quality of
the match. Feelings of awe, reverence, sacredness and certainty are also adaptable metaprograms, attachable to
any model, not just the best fitting one.
Modern science knows this: we know that merely because a culture generated a cosmology of a certain kind and
worshipped with it, was no guarantee of goodness of fit with the real universe. In so far as they are testable, we now
proceed to test (rather than to worship) models of the universe. Feelings such as awe and reverence are recognized
as biocomputer energy sources rather than as determinants of truth, i.e., of the goodness of fit of models vs. reali-
ties. A pervasive feeling of certainty is recognized as a property of a state of consciousness, a special space, which
may be indicative or suggestive but is no longer considered as a final judgement of a true fitting. Even as one can
travel inside one's models inside one's head, so can one travel outside or be the outside of one's model of the
universe, still inside one's head (see Lilly 1972 level or state +3, Satori +3). In this metaprogram it is as if one joins
the creators, unites with God, etc. Here one can so attenuate the self that it may disappear.
One can conceive of other supraself metaprograms farther out than these, such as are given in Olaf Stapledon's The
Starmaker (Dover, New York, 1937). Here the self joins other selves, touring the reaches of past and future time and
of space, everywhere. The planetwide consciousness joins into solar systems consciousness into galaxywide
consciousness. Intergalactic sharing of consciousness fused into the mind of the universe finally faces its creator, the
Starmaker. The universe's mind realizes that its creator knows its imperfections and will tear it down to start over,
creating a more perfect universe.
Such uses of one's own biocomputer as the above can teach one profound truths about one's self, one's capabilities.
The resulting states of being, of consciousness, teach one the basic truth about one's own equipment as follows:
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found
experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits.
(Lilly, 1972).
In the province of the mind is the region of one's models, of the alone self, of memory, of the metaprograms. What
of the region which includes one's body, other's bodies? Here there are definite limits.
In the network of bodies, one's own connected with others for bodily survivalprocreationcreation, there is another
kind of information:
In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within
certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the
network's mind there are no limits.
But, once again, the bodies of the network housing the minds, the ground on which they rest, the planet's surface,
impose definite limits. These limits are to be found experientially and experimentally, agreed upon by special minds,
and communicated to the network. The results are called consensus science.
Thus, so far, we have information without limits in one's mind and with agreedupon limits (possibly unnecessary) in a
network of minds. We also have information within definite limits (to be found) with one body and in a network of
bodies on a planet.
With this formulation, our scientific problem can be stated very succinctly as follows:
Given a single body and a single mind physically isolated and confined in a completely physically controlled environ-
ment in true solitude, by our present sciences can we satisfactorily account for all inputs and all outputs to and from
this mind- biocomputer (i.e., can we truly isolate and confine it?)? Given the properties of the softwaremind of this
biocomputer outlined above, is it probable that we can find, discover, or invent inputsoutputs not yet in our consen-
sus science? Does this center of consciousness receivetransmit information by at present unknown modes of
communication? Does this center of consciousness stay in the isolated confined biocomputer?
In this book I try to show you where I am in this search and research. In previous books I have dealt with personal
experiences. Here I deal with theory and methods, metaprograms and programs.
J. L. C.
February, 1972
Los Angeles, Calif.
Preface to First Edition
This work is the result of several years of personal effort to try to understand the various paradoxes of the mind and
the brain and their relationships. It is felt that the basic premises presented in this work may help resolve some of
the philosophical and theoretical difficulties which arise when one uses other viewpoints and other basic beliefs.
Some of the major philosophical puzzles are concerned with existence of self, with the relation of the self to the
brain, the self to the mind, and self to other minds, the existence or nonexistence of an immortal part of the self, and
the creation of and the belief in various powerful phantasies in these areas of thought.
In Man there is a basic need for imagining wishfulfillments. Man's wishful thinking becomes interwoven among his
best science and even his best philosophy. For the intellectual and the emotional advancement of each of us we
need certain kinds of ideals. We also need ways of thinking which look as straight at the inner realities as at the
physicalchemicalbiological outer realities. We need truly objective philosophical analysis inside ourselves as well as
outside ourselves. This work is a summary of a current position in progress to try to attain objectivity and impartiality
with respect to the innermost realities.
One might well ask where is such theory applicable? Once mastered, it may be directly applied in selfanalysis. If one
remembers that one's self is a feedbackcause with other human beings, one can start at this personal end of the
system and achieve beginnings of interhuman analysis by analyzing one's self first. If successful, one may see one's
self operating in improved fashions with other people, as judged by one's self and, much later, as judged by others.
The reflections of one's intellectual and emotional growth later may begin to be distributed and are then seen
operating in one's interhuman transactions- with one's wife, children, relatives, colleagues, and professional and
business contacts.
The persons who can understand and absorb this kind of theory need understand over a broad intellectual and
emotional front. Each one needs understanding and training in depth in multiple fields of human endeavor. Those
persons who probably can understand it best are the general scientists. * Among those in this group to whom I have
presented the theory, there was immediate understanding and an immediate grasping of the basic fundamentals and
of the consequence of the theory.
A second group who have no difficulty with the computer aspects but who may have difficulty with the subjective
aspects is that large group of young people who are becoming immersed more and more in computers, their use
and programming. A few of these may have the necessary biological and psychoanalytic background to understand
this viewpoint. Additional training may be given to these few in selfanalysis itself.
Several members of a third group may find it useful with further study, the classically trained psychoanalytic
scientists.
The psychoanalytic group may have difficulties in that very few are trained in the general purpose types of thinking
involved in general purpose computers.
There are difficulties in the way of a multidisciplinary group, as a group, to use this theory. It seems necessary that
each individual absorb the necessary kinds of thinking and kinds of motivations involved in each of the fields
represented. Members of such groups can motivate one another to do individual learning in these areas and can
help one another learn in these various areas. It is up to each responsible individual to absorb enough to gain
understanding on the levels presented.
As with most insights into the innermost realities, it is felt that many of the advantages of this viewpoint cannot be
seen directly until this way of thinking is absorbed into one's mind. The thinking machinery itself is at stake here.
Once absorbed and understood I have found it possible to see that the properties and the operations of one's mind
in many different states can be accounted for somewhat more satisfactorily. With the resulting increased control over
conscious thinking and preconscious computations, with the newly enhanced respect for one's fixed unconscious (as
if builtin) programs, the integration of one's self with the deeper inner realities becomes more satisfactory.
The theory is phrased in definite statements. However, it is not intended that the reader take this version as defi-
nitive, final, completed, or closed. Each of these definite statements is to be accepted only as a working hypothesis
as currently presented by the author. My aim is not to make a new final philosophy, a new religion, or a new rigid
way of approaching man's intellectual life. My aim is to increase the flexibility, the power, and the objectivity of our
currently limited mind and its knowledge of itself. We have come a long way from the lowly primate to our present
level. (However, we have a long way to go to realize the best obtainable from ourselves.) One has only to look at
the inadequacies of Man's treatment of Man, and see how far we must go if we are to survive as a progressing
species with better control of our battling animalistic superstitious levels.
It is expected that this theory will be useful in understanding and in programming not only one's self but other minds
as well. Enhancement of the very human depths of communication with other minds may be approached. The
current limits and the attainable limits for education, for reprogramming, for therapy and for cooperative efforts of all
sorts between men, may be aided in the terms here presented. This is at least a hope of the author. Only time and
use of this kind of thinking can test out the further working hypothesis.
One fact which must be appreciated for applying this theory is the essential individual uniqueness of each of our
minds, of each of our brains. It is no easy work to analyze either one's self or someone else. This theory is not,
cannot be, a miracle key to a given human mind. It is devilishly hard work digging up enough of the basic facts and
enough of the basic programs and metaprograms controlling each mind from within to change its poor operations
into better ones. This theory can help one to sort out and arrange stored information and facts into more effective
patterns for change. But the basic investigation of self or of other selves is not easy or fast. Our builtin prejudices,
biases, repressions and denials fight against understanding. Our Unconscious automatically controls our behavior.
Eventually we may be able to progress farther. It may take several generations of those willing to work on these
problems.
I have a question about the wisdom of publishing too much of me, myself. I hesitate to publish in this small work
certain personal observations in depth and in detail. If the society in which we live were more ideal, I might so
publish. (Possibly in such an ideal society there might be no need for such work.) I do not know the answer, nor will
I espouse the cause of thosewho feel they do know either the yes or the no answer. Frankly, I am an explorer in this
area. My ambition is to be free to explore, not to exploit. I share what I experience because that is my profession-to
search, to find, to discuss, and to write within Science what I find. Let others use what I may be privileged to find in
their own professions, businesses, and/or pursuits. I have found that as soon as I go commercial, go political, or any
other motivational endeavor, I lose what I personally prize most-my objectivity, my dispassionate appraisal, my
freedom to explore the mind within my own particular limits. To make money, to cure someone, to rule, to be elec-
ted, to grant money, to be a specialist in one science are all necessary and grand human enterprises needing per-
sons of high intellectual and dedicated maturity. I do not seem to be of those (maybe I do or did not choose to be).
In the United States of America in 1966, to insist on the explorer's role in the region of Man's innermost mind is to
insist on being intellectually unconventional and to espouse a region of endeavor of research difficult to support.
Grants for scientific research tend to be awarded by specialists to specialists; this is true in medical sciences as well
as others. This current work cuts through too many specialties for that kind of support. I hope someday that
approaches such as this one can be supported on their own merit.
Respect for the Unknown is hard to come by. Support for a science devoted to the Innermost Unknowns is needed.
METATHEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In general there are two opposing and different schools of thought on the basic origins of systems of thought or
systems of mathematics. In a simplified way these two extreme positions can be summarized as follows:
1. In the first position one makes the metatheoretical assumption that a given system of thinking is based upon irre-
ducible postulates- the basic beliefs of the systems. All consequences and all manipulations of the thinking machine
are then merely elaborations of, combinations of, these assumptions operating upon data derived from the mind
and/or from the external world. This is called the formalistic school. This school assumes that one can, with suffi-
ciently sophisticated methods, find those postulates which are motivating and directing a given mind in its operations.
A further metatheoretical assumption is that once one finds this set of postulates that then one can account for all of
the operations of that mind. (Whitehead and Russell, 1927; Carnap, 1942-46; Tarski, 1946.)
2. The opposing school at the opposite end of a spectrum of schools, as it were, makes the metatheoretical
assumption that thinking systems arise from intuitive, essentially unknowable, substrates of mental operations
(Hilbert, 1950). This school states that new kinds of thinking are created from unknown sources. Further, one is not
able to arrive at all of the basic assumptions on which systems of thinking operate. Many of the assumptions from
this point of view must be forever hidden from the thinker. Thus in this view the origins of thinking are wide open.
With this metatheoretical assumption one can then conceive of the existence in the future of presently inconceivable
systems of thought.
3. There is an intermediate position between these two extremes in which one assumes the existence of both kinds
and that each of these two extremes has something to offer. Thus one can select kinds of thinking which are subject
to formalistic analysis and formalistic synthesis based upon basic beliefs. But this does not include all thinking. Some
kinds continue to be based in unknown areas, sources, and methods. Metatheoretical selection is being done by
selection of the formal kind of thinking from a large universe of other possibilities. This position does not state that
the origins of the basic beliefs are completely specifiable. However, once some related basic beliefs are found to
exist, a limited system of rules of combination of the basic beliefs giving internally consistent logical results can be
devised for limited use of that system. This organization into a limited integral system of thinking and the selection of
those basic beliefs which naturally fit into such systems of thinking, is a way of dividing off this territory.
Among many other metatheoretical ways of looking at one's own thinking machine and its activities is one which
considers the unknown origins of basic beliefs and finding those whose origins are unknown. The whole problem of
origin and the whole problem of how one constructs basic beliefs is at stake here.
If one takes a naturally occurring, thinking mind and obtains a sufficiently large sample of its thinking, one can have
a metatheoretical faith that one can then find the basic beliefs and their origins. I am not too sure that such meta-
theoretical faith in one's ability to adequately observe, adequately record, and adequately analyze mental events and
construct them into logical explanations is warranted. With certain areas of thinking one can do this, with certain
kinds of minds one can do this, but are not these the minds which have been organized along the known meta-
theoretical pathways? Are not these the minds which believe implicitly in metatheoretical terms in a basic set of
beliefs and operate with them in an obvious direct logical fashion?
May it not be better to conceive of minds and of criteria of excellence for general purpose minds in which one plugs
in, as it were, metatheoretical positions which do not have only this area of applied formalism. In certain areas of
thinking, of course, it is necessary to have a set of basic beliefs including those of the rules of various kinds of
games that one must play in the external physical reality and in the social reality.* One can play these at different
levels of abstraction with more or less excellence at playing, with or without dedication, etc. Interlock with external
reality has its own requirements, not just those of the mind itself. In this paper external reality is not the area of
major emphasis as can be seen in other portions of the paper. The interest of the author is more in the thinking
machine itself, unencumbered. During those times when it is unencumbered by the necessities of interlock with other
computers and/or with an external reality, its noninterlock structure can be studied. A given mind seen in pure culture
by itself in profound physical isolation and in solitude is the raw material for our investigation (Lilly, 1956).
Thus our major interests are in those metatheoretical positions which remain as open as possible to reasonable
explanation and reasonable models of the thinking processes of the origins of beliefs, of the origins of self, the
organization of self with respect to the rest of the mind, and the kinds of permissible transformations of self which
are reversible, flexible, and introduce new and more effective ways of thinking.
Is one of the sum and substance of one's experience, of one's genetics, genic inheritance, of one's modeling of other
humans and of other animals and of plants, or is one something in addition to this? As we chip away at this major
question of existence of self, as men have chipped away at this question over the millennia, we find that this kind of
question and the attempt to answer it have led to new understandings, new mathematics, new sciences, new points
of view and new human activities. If one attempts to conceive of one's self as having gone through another kind of
evolution other than that of the human, if one attempts to conceive of himself having lived in an environment different
from the social one that we have been exposed to, or if one attempts to imagine having evolved as an organism with
the same (or greater) degree of intelligence in the sea or on a planet nearer the sun or farther from the sun, one
realizes the essentially prejudiced nature of one's self. Let one carefully consider, for example, the genic mutations
leading to different human form, structure, function and mental set. One metatheoretical position is that all such
mutations in their proper combination exposed to the proper environment (of which there must be millions of possi-
bilities) can survive and progress. In other words, even those mutations which are lethal now, may have survival
value under special new and different conditions. 1
If there is any truth in this statement then we should be doing a whole set of experiments on the adaptability and the
seeking of the proper environment, proper peculiar diets, proper relation of sleepwakefulness, light to dark, amount
of various kinds of radiation, amount of noise, amount of motion, and so forth for mutants at each stage in their life
cycle. In other words, we should experiment with all of the vast parameters in which we have evolved and their
variations in order to seek optimal survival values of these for the embryo, fetuses and children who do not survive
under our peculiarly narrow range of values of these parameters. To change lethals to optimals seems possible and
even probable with imaginative and thorough research.
Our genetic code with all its possible variations is a general purpose construction hit for a vast set of organisms, only
a few examples of which we see in the adult human population in all races around the world. This molecular cons-
truction kit for organisms (through the exigencies of matings, of early embryonic development and growth, of the
conditions imposed by mother, her diet and physical and social surroundings) gives rise to organisms which test
experimentally the conditions imposed upon them and test how well the particular combination and particular values
in their genic code are combined to form an integral complete organism for coping with that particular environment
and those particular organisms found in that environment (including bacteria and viruses).
One can conceive of an infinity of other environments populated with other viruses, bacteria, and complex organisms
in which Man as such could not survive in his present form. One could also conceive of our genetic code (as given)
generating organisms who could and would survive and progress under those new conditions.
Until we have thoroughly explored this genetic code, until we can specify the organism and the conditions under
which it can reach maturity, and become an integral individual, we will not have the data necessary for specifying all
of the characteristics of the human computer which are brought to the adult from the spermegg combination.
We have not tested our own range of adaptability (as integral adults) to all possible environments. Scientifically we
have little experience with the extreme; we know something of the extremes of temperature, of air and of water in
which we can survive. We know something of the radiation limits within which we can survive. We know something
of the oxygen concentrations in the air that we breathe, we know something of the light levels within which we can
function. We know a little of the sound levels in which we can function, and so fo*Von Neumann & Morgenstern.rth.
We are beginning to see how the environment interlocks with our computer and changes its functioning. We are
beginning to see how certain kinds of experiences with these conditions set up rules which we call physical science
within our own minds. We are beginning to see how, if we change the external conditions, in a limited way within a
limited piece of apparatus, that these rules must be changed in order to understand how we can model these
changed conditions and the way that atoms, molecules, radiation and space behave, in our own minds. This century
has seen vast advances in our modeling of radiation, material particles of matter, space, stars, galaxies, solid
materials, liquids, and our small modifications of all of these. This century, however, has not seen a similar gain in
our understanding of the operations of our own minds, of the essential origins of thinking, and of those conditions
under which we can elect to create new thinking machines within our minds.
2* Schrodinger (1945).
economical, and interactively creative. Consider, for example, the case of the fictitious individual created by the
group of mathematicians masquerading under the name of Dr. Nicholas Bourbaki.
This group of mathematicians in order to create a mathematics or sets of mathematics beyond the capacity of any
one individual, held meetings three times a year and exchanged ideas, then went off and worked separately. The
resulting papers were published under a pseudonym because the products of this work were felt to be a group result
beyond any one individual's contribution.
Whether or not this group was greater than or lesser than a single human mind, operating in isolation on similar
materials, will not be known for some time. It may be that the human computer interlock achieved among these
mathematicians created a new entity greater than any one of them in regard to modes of thinking, complexity of
thinking, and creative new ideas. Certain kinds of things that Man does of necessity require tremendous amounts of
cooperation among very large numbers of individuals. Such accomplishments are beyond any one individual and are
a product only of the group effort. This is true, for example, in building the Empire State Building, a subway system,
a railroad system, an airline, a large industrial factory, etc. In each of these cases there is a rearrangement of
external realities, a setting up of a communication network between many individuals and a dedication of each of
these individuals to the purposes of the organization of which they are a part. This is probably the greatest
accomplishment of our industrial, military, educational and religious efforts in this century. Man's effective interlock
with other men can accomplish certain kinds of things beyond any individual.
However, in certain areas, gifted, talented, intelligent individuals seem to function almost autonomously as solitu-
dinous computers giving rise to new findings. This is seen in the case of the mathematical geniuses raised in
solation. One is almost afraid to educate such people for fear that they will lose their general purpose nature and
their ability to make original creative contributions. Somehow or other they have escaped interlock into Man's ever
more pervasive social organizations and their demands. As in the case of the creative physicist Moseley, who was
drafted and killed in World War 1, such talent can be thrown away by the operations of the necessity of interlock in
our society.
There is a point of view in the modern world and there are divisions among intellectuals which are wasting our use
of talent and genius. There are antithetical philosophies which cause diversive intellectual activities. It may be that
such conflict is necessary for the intellectual advancement of each individual. It may also be completely superfluous
and nonsensical. C. P. Snow has pointed out in his writings (especially those about the two cultures) that one kind of
social dichotomy about which I speak. The value systems of each intellectual reflect his prejudices, his biases, his
blindnesses, as well as his areas of competence. It seems to be a very foolish maneuver to take that which one
knows, that in which one is excellent and raise it above the general intellectual level of all other intellectuals. One
technique of raising what one and one's most intimate colleagues know above the surrounding intellectual terrain is
to literally dig an intellectual moat around one's field of activity. To dig this moat one demeans and denigrates areas
of knowledge and individuals in those fields surrounding one's own field. This kind of activity seems to be almost
builtin in our structure as biological organisms.
J.C.L.
1967
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands,
Contents
Foreword to Second Edition, v
Preface to Second Edition, viii
Preface to First Edition, xv
1. Introduction
Use of ProjectionDisplay Techniques in Deep SelfAnalysis with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD 25), 18
Corporeal Face, 23 Blank Screen, 23 Zero Level External Reality, 25 Definition of Evasion of Analysis of
Metaprograms, Inner Cognition Space, 29 Practical Considerations, 35 Definition of a General Purpose
SelfMetaprogram,38
2. Summary of Experiments in SelfMetaprogramming with LSD 25, 41
| Experiments on Basic Metaprograms of Existence, 43 Metaprogrammatic Results of Belief Experiments, 48
3. Personal Metaprogrammatic Language An Example of Its Properties, 53
4. Metaprogramming in the Presence of a Fixed Neurological Program (Migraine): Example of Perception and Belief
Interactions, 62
5. Note on the Potentially Lethal Aspects of Certain Unconscious, Protohuman, Survival Programs, 67
6. Choice of Attending Persons During LSD25 State Used for SelfAnalysis, 69
7. Behavioral, NonIsolation Replay of Protohuman Programs:
The Problem of Repetitive Unconscious Replay, 71
8. Basic Effects of LSD25 on the Biocomputer: Noise as the
Basic Energy for Projection Techniques, 76
Growth Hypothesis, 79
9. Summary of Basic Theory and Results for Metaprogramming
the Positive States with LSD25, 82
10. Coalitions, Interlock and Responsibility, 84
11. Participant Interlock, Coalitions with Individuals of
Another Species, 91
Retreats from Interlock, 94
Metaprograms for Interspecies Interlock, 95
Observations with TursiopsHuman Interlock: Mimicry as
Evidence of Interlock, 96
12. Summary of Logic Used in this Paper: Truth, Falsity, Probability, Metaprograms and Their Bounds, loo
13. Hardware, Software Relationships in the Human Biocomputer, 104
14. Problems, 107
15. Metaprogramming the Body Image, 109
16. Brain Models, 113
17. Excerpts from The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 122
Summary, 126
Acknowledgments, 128
Glossary, 130
Major Metaprograms, 131
Key to Categories in References and Bibliography, 135
References, 136
Categorized Bibliography, 145
Abstract, 158
Introduction
"The general (purpose) computer is... a machine in which the operator can prescribe, for any internal state of the
machine and for any given condition affecting it, what state it shall go to next... All behaviors are at the operator's
disposal. A program... with the machine forms a mechanism that will show (any thinkable) behavior. This genera-
lization has largely solved the main problem of the brain so far as its objective behavior is concerned; the nature of
its subjective aspects may be left to the next generation, if only to reassure them that there are still major scientific
worlds left to conquer." (W. Ross Ashby, "What Is Mind?" in Theories of the Mind, Macmillan, New York, 1962)
The relations of the activities of the brain to the subjective life in the mind have long been an arguable puzzle. In this
century some advances in the reciprocal fields of study of each aspect of the question apparently can begin to clear
up some of the dilemmas. This is a report of a theory and its use which is intended to attempt to link operationally,
the:
(a) mental subjective aspects,
(b) neuronal circuit activities,
(c) biochemistry, and
(d) observable behavioral variables.
The sources of information used by the author are mainly:
(1) the results and syntheses of his own experiments on the CNS* and the behavior of animals,
(2) the experiences and results of experiments in profound physical isolation on himself,
(3) his own psychoanalytic work on himself and others,
(4) his studies and experience with the design, construction, operation and programming of electronic solid state
digital storedprogram computers,
(5) studies of analogue computers for the analysis and conversion of voice frequency spectra for man and for
dolphin and the online computation of multiple continuous data sources,
(6) studies and experiments in neuropsychopharmacology,
(7) research on and with communication with humans, with dolphins, and with both,
(8) study of certain literature in biology (B), logic (L), neuropsychopharmacology (N), brain and mind models (M),
communication (T), psychoanalysis (P), computers (C), psychology (O), psychiatry (I), and hypnosis (H) (see
References and Bibliography).
The introduction of openminded, multiplelevel, continuously developing, online, operational, dynamic, economical,
expanding, structuralfunctional, field-jumping, fieldignoring theory is needed. The applications of this theory extend
from the atomicmolecularmembranescell levels, though cell aggregational levels, total behavior and mentalcognitive
levels of the single organism of large brain size, and to dyadic and larger groups of such individuals.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
The use of the psychedelic agents (such as LSD 25) in the human subject shows certain properties of these subs-
tances in changing the computer's operations in certain ways. Some of these changes are mentioned above in
passing; a summary of those found in the LSD state empirically are as follows:
1. The selfmetaprogram can make instructions to create special states of the computer; many of these special
states have been described in the literature on hypnosis.
2. These instructions are carried out with relatively short delays (minutes). The delays of course will vary with the
complexity of the task which is being programmed into the computer. It also is a previous history of this same kind of
programming: the more often it has been done the easier it is to do again and the less time it takes.
3. Only taboo or forbidden programs are not fully constructed: there are peculiar gaps which give away the fact that
there are forbidden areas. Within realizable limits most other programs can be produced.
4. When one first does enter into the storage systems the way the material is held in the dynamic storage is entirely
strange to one's conscious self.
5. Production of displays of data patterns, of instructions, or storage contents, or of current problems can be
realized through such instructions. [A "display" is any visual (or acoustic, or tactile, etc.) plotting of a set of
discriminative variables in any number of dimensions of the currently available materials.] The motivational sign and
intensity can be varied in any of these displays under special orders.
6. More or less complete replays of past experiences important in current computations can be programmed
from storage; the calendar objective time of original occurrence seems a not too important aspect of the filing
system; the level of maturation of the computer at the time of original occurrence is of greater import.
7. Stored or filed occurrences, filed instructions, filed programs vary in the amount and specificity of positive
and/or negative affectfeelingemotion attached to each. If too negative (evil, harmful, fearful) an emotional charge
is attached, replay can allow readjustment toward the positive end of the motivationfeelingemotion spectrum. With
the LSD25 state the negative or the positive charge can be changed to neutral or to its opposite by special instruc-
tions. However, since most people wish to avoid the negative and encourage the positive once they obtain control
over programming they tend to put a positive charge even on programs and metaprograms and the processes of
creating them. (A chemical change may take place in signal storage (Fig. 1) as the sign of the motivational process
shifts from negative to positive.)
The following description gives examples of the successful uses of and the results with the freedom to program new
instructions during the LSD state. It is to be emphasized for those who have not seen the phenomena within
themselves that this kind of manipulation and control of one's own programs and its rather dramatic presen-
tation to one's self is apparently not achievable outside of the use of LSD 25. This amount of control can be said
to resemble other ways of achieving control and visual projection but in actual intensity I know of no other way to
achieve it. Hypnosis is a possible exception.
In some cases during the eight or so possible hours of the special states of consciousness achievable with the help
of LSD25, the use of visually projected images to aid in seeing the nature of one's own defensive, evasive, and
idealization mechanisms can be realized. By means of a mirror for the careful inspection of the body in the
external reality (the whole body or the face alone) it is possible to induce a special state of consciousness (or a
special program or metaprogram in the use of perception circuitry) in which remembered or unconsciously stored
images of self or of others appear on or in place of the body image. Such stored images can be selected within
certain limits, manipulated within other limits, or allowed to occur in a free association context, appearing as parallels
of the current thoughtstream. The orders to self for the appearance of these phenomena may resemble the post-
hypnotic suggestion instructions given during autohypnosis, the metaprogrammatic instructions to a very large com-
puter for a certain type of display program with special content to be displayed, and the orders to a large organi-
zation to produce a play with many actors operating in one place in space, one after the other, each with an assig-
ned role not necessarily specified in detail. For periods of 30 or so minutes of objective time such projections can be
maintained and worked with in the selfanalysis context; at the end of this time interval some fatigue is noted with
subsequent stopping of the display. Reevocation can be achieved by a period of rest from this and similar tasks for a
period of 15 minutes objective time. Several such periods can be evoked during a single session.
Areas of unconsciously operating taboos, denials and inhibitions are revealed (in negative, as it were) by the
absence of appearance of the consciously desired and ordered projections in certain areas. Areas of unconscious
elaboration show as projections of great detail and completeness even though no real remembered reality could
possibly correspond to the projection. Screen memories (Bertram Lewin, et al.) show in great profusion. As the
buried material behind the screen is uncovered, the screen memory disappears.
An apparent defensive maneuver is the flickering images phenomena; the new images come at such a rapid rate (2
or 3 per objective second) like a slowed flickering movie that one cannot inspect any one image long enough to
recognize its significance. Another alleged evasion is the melting, or mosaic, or distortion maneuver in which images
flow in whole or plastically, or are broken up into parts like a mosaic, or parts are interchanged among several stored
images at different levels. The melting, mosaic or distortion of course can be programmed, of itself, under direct
orders. It is only considered an evasion when it is not under the control of the self.
The current affect and its modulation by conscious wishing is immediately shown on the facial expression of the
projection despite a lack of change in the objective face itself (proprioceptively, photographically, etc., detected). The
projected face and the real face fit together in three dimensions. It is almost as if the perception systems were using
the real face and recomputing it to give a different appearance, i.e., if the real face is held neutral then the projected
face will manipulate the apparent features of the real face with accurate showing of anger, joy, sexual desire, hatred,
jealousy, pleasure, pain, fear, psychic mutilation of ego, adoration of self, and several other such emotions. These
have been studied by their mirrorprojections.
Conflicts can be projected in several ways: the images switch rapidly back and forth between the two conflicting
categories, emotions, orders, persons, ideals, or other. Alternatively, parts (disparate parts) of the internalized argu-
ment are projected side by side, giving a peculiar stereoscopic depthinconflict appearance to the display. Profound
fatigue shows by showing aged or diseased splotchy images.
The negative operations which prevent certain contents reaching access to the display mechanism can be shown to
exist by using alternate "acceptable to the ego ideal" routes to the display program and its projection. For example,
material which cannot be projected onto one's own mirrored image, sometimes can be projected onto a color picture
of someone else. In some cases the other person in the picture is most suitably and acceptably of the opposite sex
(face alone, full body clothed, or unclothed) for the full use of the display of the desired material.
In the proper circumstances a properly selected real person can also serve as the external reality three
dimensional screen onto which material can be projected. This latter "screen" is not a passive one and may say
or do something on its own which either changes the projection or invokes a new program (such as the demanding
external reality program) which may abolish the whole phenomenon of projection in the visual display itself. When
one sees a visual projection onto the face of another person of, say, one's true deeper feelings, the realization may
come that this happens to one all the time below the levels of awareness without the special powers attributable to
this substance; i.e., there is an already prepared unconscious "display" (which is here allowed access to the visual
mechanism by the special conditions) which normally operates in the external reality program with other persons
unconsciously or preconsciously. This firsttime finding can have therapeutic benefits in the consequent selfanalysis of
one's human relations.
CORPOREAL FACE
One interesting kind of a projection onto the image of one's own whole body (or onto the real body of another) is the
phenomenon of the selfcreation of thecorporeal face. In this phenomenon, one sees a face of a "monstrous being"
whose projected features are made up on the following real body parts: the real shoulders become the "top of head,"
mammal areolae become "oculi" (with female, proptosis), navel to "nares," pubes to "mouth," and with male, penis to
"lingua." This face, though quite vacuous of itself, can be made quite frightening, sad or happy with proper program-
ming. Once seen, it is easily programmed even with extreme body position changes. Analysis shows, in a particular
case, that this face is in storage from very young childhood and was generated/resulted from phantasies about
bodies, male and female, threatening/seductive. This projection is useful as a tracer of certain kinds of fears.
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As a pragmatic matter one should do selfanalysis in the severely attenuated physical reality without LSD 25 for several
exposures before using the substance. One must learn not only to tolerate but to like the experience for several
hours at a time. One's fears of the unreleased unconscious programming can be attenuated and analyzed during this
period.
Training sessions with LSD25 with another person must be done before it is combined with the profound physical
isolation and solitude. During this period training by the external screens and the projections can be done with doses
of LSD25 from 100 micrograms minimum to the tolerated maximum of that individual. During this period one must
face the fears of LSD25 itself and the fears mentioned above of damage to one's brain and one's mind by this agent.
One must also face the hedonistic, narcissistic pleasure induction and maintenance possible with LSD 25, and one
must make one's own decision about how to handle these pleasures versus those which are brought about in the
external reality.
In the profound physical isolation situation one acquires, or one has, or one develops a confidence in one's body to
function quite automatically and to take care of itself. The whole problem of air supply, keeping one's face above the
water, the action of respiration and of heart, etc., are all turned over to the protohuman survival programs to maintain
themselves. All tendencies on the part of a subject to control or to monitor his own respiration or his own heart
action should be discouraged. The same applies to the gastrointestinal tract and the genitourinary tract. Insofar as
can be achieved automatic operations of these systems should be encouraged. Gradually they will assume their
proper lowlevel expression in the psychic life of the individual subject. Confidence in their continued operation
without attention by one's self (by the selfmetaprograms) can be achieved. These considerations are particularly
important with the LSD25 as the physical isolation and solitude begin to develop.
On the analytic side one must have analyzed and dealt with one's unconscious death wishes. Up to a certain critical
point one knows and feels the probability of survival under conditions over which one has control. One has already
experienced internal mechanisms which may have tried to take over and deal a death-seeking blow to one. This kind
of material must have been thoroughly analyzed with an external analyst before one approaches experiments such
as these. One's self and one's analyst must be content that the level of control of such internal mechanisms is such
that the probability of their dealing a deathseeking blow is low enough to risk exposure to these new conditions. This
point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Those who are acquainted with the phenomena during classical
psychoanalysis realize that certain kinds of personalities and certain individuals during analysis and after analysis
can go through depressive phases in which such death wishes can be acted out. The seeds of destruction of self
can be buried in the deeper metaprograms and programs of one's own computer. Certain kinds of neuronal
activities can destroy an organism. These are the kinds of activities which one must know and be aware of the
signs and the symbols of evocation of these systems within one's self.
Such negative phenomena are usually seen after the first session or two with LSD 25. The residual unanalyzed
portion of these programs are usually projected and acted out as a consequence of their release by this agent.
Several analytic sessions with an external analyst are thus necessary for maximum safety and minimum risk in these
experiments.
In the farthest and deepest state of isolation, one's basic needs and one's assumptions about self become evident.
The existence of self and one's belief in the existence of one's self are made manifest. The positive or negative sign
of values that one places upon one's self and upon the existence of one's self begins to show its force and strength.
The problems discussed, but generally unfaced in a religious context in the external real world, are faced and can
be lived out with a freedom unavailable since childhood.
The problem of the dissolution of one's conscious self by death of the body is studiable. One's evasions of this
problem and of facing it can be projected into studiable areas of one's experience. The existence theorem for
spiritual and psychic entities is also testable and the strength of one's belief in these entities can be analyzed.
Evasions of selfanalysis and evasions of taking on certain kinds of beliefs can be tested.
In this area the denial and negation mechanisms of classical psychoanalysis show their strength. Previous analysis
can train one to recognize that when data cannot be called up or when displays cannot be constructed or when
certain operations cannot be carried out, one can see the cause currently existing. The set of inhibitory and re-
pressive devices in one's computer is hard at work. In such inhibitory and repressive states preprogrammed sets of
basic assumptions to be explored are incompletely carried out. One quickly finds areas of the consequences of the
assumed beliefs, which one cannot enter or only enters with fear, with anger, or with love, carried over from some
other programming.
DEFINITION OF A GENERAL PURPOSE SELF-METAPROGRAM
The essential features and the goals sought in the selfanalysis are in the metaprogram: make the computer
general purpose. In this sense we mean that in the general purpose nature of the computer there can be no
display, no acting, nor an ideal which is forbidden to a consciouslywilled metaprogram. Nor is any display,
acting or ideal made without being consciously metaprogrammed. In each case of course one is up against the
limits of the unique computer which is one's own. There are certain kinds of metaprograms, displays, acting, or
ideals which are beyond the capacity of a particular computer. However, one's imagined limits are sometimes
smaller than those which one can achieve with special work. The metaprogram of the specific beliefs about the
limits of one's self are at stake here. One's ability to achieve certain special states of consciousness, for example,
are generally preprogrammed by basic beliefs taken on in childhood. If the computer is to maintain its general pur-
pose nature (which presumably was there in childhood), one must recapture a far greater range of phenomena than
one expects that one has available. For instance, one should be able to program in practically any area possible
within human imagination, human action or human being.
As explorations deepen, one can see the evading nature of many programs which one previously considered basic
to one's private and professional philosophy. As one opens up the depths, it is wise not to privately or publicly es-
pouse as ultimate any truths one finds in the following areas: the universe in general, beings not human, thought
transference, life after death, transmigration of souls, racial memories, species-jumpingthinking, nonphysical action at
a distance, and so forth. Such ideas may merely be a reflection of one's needs in terms of one's own survival.
Ruthless selfanalysis as to one's needs for certain kinds of ideas in these areas must be explored honestly
and truthfully. The rewarding and positivelyreinforcing effects of LSD25 must be remembered and emphasized;
one overvalues the results of one's chemically rewarding thinking.
Once one has done such deep analysis one later finds deeper that these needs were generating these ideas. One's
public need to proclaim them to one's self and to others, as if they are the ultimate truth, is an expression of one's
need to believe. Insight into the fact that one is enthused because the positive, startand-maintain, rewarding sign has
been chemically stamped on these ideas must be remembered.
An explorer operating at these depths cannot afford such childish baggage. These are disguises of and evasions of
the ultimate dissolution of self; the maintenance of pleasure and of life are insisting on denial of death. If one stops
at these beliefs, no progress in further analysis can be made. These beliefs are analysis dissolvers.One might call
these lazy assumptions which prevent one from pushing deeper into self and avoid expending any great effort in this
deeper direction. One of these very powerful evasions is an hedonistic acceptance of things as they are with con-
version of most of them to a pleasant glow. Another similar evasion is deferring discussion of such basic issues until
one's life after death.
A possibly great spur to work in this area for certain kinds of persons is the acceptance of unknowables and of the
unknown itself. A powerful wish to push into the unknown further than those ahead of one in calendar time is helpful
in terms of one's motivation at this point. Everyone has his say about the truth in this area. Many other persons
would like very much to have one follow their metaprograms. In my own view I would prefer to be a questing mind
reporting on some interesting journeys. In so far as I fail to be this, I am guilty of attempting to metaprogram the
reader.
In summary then one starts on the deeper journeys, independently, metaprogrammed properly, and relatively safe
but without evasions. After having been through some of the innermost depths of self, a result is that they are only
one's own beliefs and their multitudes of randomized logical consequences deep down inside one's self. There is
nothing else but stored experience.
4. Metaprogramming in the Presence of a Fixed Neurological Program (Migraine): Example of Perception and
Belief Interactions
Specific example is given some experiments were done on reprogramming a specific biocomputer (migraine case) in
the LSD25 state.
Under certain special circumstances it has been found possible to program certain trends in perception and project
them into the visual space for study. Among such processes are the apparent presence of other persons. One's belief
in the reality of these presences is not at stake here. Unless one purposely intensifies the belief in the reality of
these presences, one can detect that they are not existing in the external reality. The safe metaprogram to use is that
they exist only in the mind even though they appear to exist outside the body.
One may ask the question do these programs exist continuously below the threshold of consciousness in the usual
mental state, or are they created de novo in or by the LSD 25 state? Current psychoanalytic and psychiatric theories
state that they exist in the "unconscious" below the levels of awareness and are evoked from that region of the
computer by the LSD25 state. All we can say here is that this looks like the more likely of the two alternatives;
however, the other one should be kept in mind. Some of these belowthresholdprograms once detected with the
LSD25 state can (in solitude without LSD25) be just detected near threshold in a highly motivated state. Without LSD 25
one can achieve the necessary excitation of these programs to force them above threshold.
In one particular subject migraine was used as an advantageous tracer and a spur to the selfanalysis. In this case
there were asymmetries of the spatial perception fields. The right side of the visual field was very different from the
left side. (What was seen from the right eye was different from that seen with the left eye.) These differences reside
in color, in the persistence of afterimages, in the occurrences of scotoma during a migraine attack, etc. (As is well
known in the clinical literature such conditions can exist easily forty years or more.) Among these asymmetries there
are spatial distortions of the visual system. In this particular case the right eye is more sensitive, has a lower
threshold for photophobia and pain in general. The sensations and skin perceptions on the right side of the head are
less pleasant and stronger than those on the left. The migraine attack is confined to the right side of the head.
At times correct programming can be achieved in the LSD 25 state so that these cephalic differences can be
enhanced, studied, and projected. Recall and living out of past experiences from childhood show a traumatic use of
the right side of the head. In the LSD25 state abrupt physical blows to the right side of the head with violent shrinking
away from the source, with right eye closure falling away to the left, and brief apparent "loss of consciousness" was
experienced. This is an example of along-term (apparently) builtin unconscious program. This experience was not
elicited without the help of the LSD25 state nor without the help of abreactions in classical psychoanalysis. All that
can be seen of this program during the usual daily e.r. state is the asymmetry of perception.
In the LSD25 state this autonomous program generated some presences not real but perceived as if real. When with
proper metaprogramming this effect was raised above threshold, the presences were felt and seen as shadowy
creatures or persons coming in from the right side of the visual field out of darkness. The impression is that the
spatial field of perception becomes distorted in such a way that the presences can penetrate the distorted field.
In thinking about this effect the patient generated a theory of the projections as if it was no projection. The patient
states that these are beings from another dimension penetrating through a hole between their and our universes. (This
attribution of causes makes no sense unless it is believed implicitly.) Once the intensity of belief in this system is
lowered, the critical threshold for the distortion of the perceptual field becomes obvious and the unconsciously pro-
grammed projection process becomes detectable. The artificial beings now are no longer that, they are merely dis-
tortions of the visual field because of some peculiar development of the nervous system. The dramatic bringing in
of external beings was shown to have a need of its own, a relief from the solitude and isolation. Essential loneliness
gives rise to the creation of those beings within this particular person. The necessity of projecting his own anger and
fears by the creation of thesebeings was found in the subsequent analysis.
After these experiences study of these phenomena without LSD 25 in solitude and isolation showed that the distorted
field can be detected by relaxation of vigilance and by free association into the edges of the perceptual spaces using
any random sequence of stimuli for the projection energy. Without the LSD 25 the beings or presences do not appear.
Peculiar distortions of the perceptual space do appear. These distortions gave the excuse for the projection of the
beings. The subject created alien presences out of perceptually distorted noises by means of a belief pro-
gram. The complex patterns of the noise coming through the spatially distorted and modified fields of the
perceptual apparatus allowed creative construction of figures which satisfied current needs.
These distortions of the field are not static. The effects (maximal to the right) are seen as timevarying functions. Not
only is there an apparent geometrical factor fixed to the body coordinates but there is a varying set of factors. It is
the latter set that are locked in by an unconscious program for perception and for feelings. For the evocation of
these programs in the LSD25 state the beliefs for the day metaprogram determines the outcome. The patient says to
himself the presences seen come from outside me and my program storage. These metaprogrammatic orders then
are used in his computer to construct and modify whatever apparently comes in to create presences and at the
same time to place the presences outside the computer itself. Thus these orders are essentially used twice: (1) For
constructing a basic belief about the external reality of the presences and (2) for a display which demonstrates the
results of computations using that belief. The belief is used on incoming signals with uncertain or distorted origins.
Without LSD25 this patient finds it difficult if not impossible to program such projections. He cannot use this basic
belief counter to the powerful external reality program. It may be possible for him to use this belief without the LSD 25
state in possibly other extreme conditions, such as in the presence of white noise of large magnitude, the hypno-
gogic state, the dreaming state in sleep, or during hypnotic trance.
This patient says, "With the usual high levels of daylight in the summers or artificial light in the house, with the
stimulation of me by other persons, with the usual high sound levels of e.r., all organized in demanding ways to call
upon my purposes (integral to me), I cannot (or will not) program 'alien presences in the e.r.' Nor will I any longer so
program 'presences' into other persons, as a consequence of my detection of the fact that I 'unconsciously
programmed' presences of my own creation into other persons."
In most cases the unconscious programming is used to project one's own beliefs and "presences" into and onto
other persons in the e.r. This is the easiest route to use and the hardest to detect. The detection is difficult because
of (1) the resemblance of one human to another, (2) the apparently meaningless "noisy" signals other persons emit
in every mode, and (3) the interlocking feedback relations between one's self and the important persons in the e.r. or
the apparent but effective e.r. created by telephone, radio, television, motion pictures, books, etc.
Patients can thus have even evocable proof (false) of the reality (false) of their beliefs about another person. It is
almost as if one can extend one's own braincomputer into that of another person by feedback and thus use the other
as an actor, acting ("out there") the part assigned by one's own beliefs. Naturally, the performance is not perfect (see
later Interlock).
If the roles are accepted by the other and acted upon as new programming, unconsciously, one cannot see these
processes easily. If the other person asserts himself and opposes the assigned roles, one has an opportunity to
examine these processes in one's self.
One can make the following selfassumptions about the above sources of information, in solitude, in the LSD 25 state
(1) inside one's own head; (2) from other beings, nonhuman; (3) from outer space intelligences; (4) from ESP with
humans.
If one assumes a transcendence program, one's computer generates it according to one's own rules for transcen-
dence. Programming can be assumed as if it came from self, or other humans, and/or from other beings. Modern
scientists assume that under these conditions information comes only from self, i.e., from storage wholly within the
human computer.
5. Note on the Potentially Lethal Aspects of Certain Unconscious, Protohuman, Survival Programs
It was found empirically that certain aspects of some programs carry the ability to destroy the individual biocomputer,
or at least the ability to lead the way into potentially destructive action. A metaprogram to neutralize programs with
selfdestruction in them is necessary. The use of LSD 25 in selfanalysis allows quick penetration to such buried letha-
lity; a definite caution is advised in such use of this technique. Until such unconscious programs are found and
thoroughly investigated, and understood in terms of the metaprogrammatic future, personal professional supervision
(of a special type) is recommended. Such supervision should be over the whole period of investigation and (in detail)
should be before, during, and after a session for at least several days. Some of the instinctual patterns of behavior
stirred up in the process of the session apparently must be actedout in order to be tested, understood and filed
properly in the metaprograms for the future plans of the individual. In this phase, dangers to self arise.
The states of the revelation of the implanted deeper programs may involve the stages of childhood plus those
presumed to have led Man (as an evolving primate) to civilization itself, and finally those leading into Man's own
future beyond present accomplishments. Near the beginning (and sometimes later) of the LSD 25 analyses some
survival programs (protohuman) may appear. These programs include expressions of strong sexuality, gluttony,
panic, anger, overwhelming guilt, sadomasochistic actions and phantasies, and superstitions. These are of amazing
strength and power over the selfmetaprogram. Much of this material is wordless:existing in the emotionfeeling-
motivational storage parts of the computer, it usually has only poor representations in the modeling, clear thinking
and verbal portions. The LSD25 allows breakdown of the barriers between the emotionalwordless systems, and the
word-filled modeling systems by means of channeled uninhibited feeling and channeled uninhibited action. (This is
one way that the unconscious is made conscious in a sometimes too rapid fashion.) If strong enough, the modeling
systems (selfmetaprogrammer) can receive the powerful currents of emotion in full force, go along with them, and
eventually construct a vigorous operating model consonant with the desired ideal metaprograms but also with
emotional power, builtin. If not strong enough, the selfmetaprogrammer can be temporarily overwhelmed by the
protohuman survival programs.
There is an additional caution in the use of these substances; the selfprogrammer must be strong enough to
experience these phenomena and not make difficulttoreverse mistakes in reprogramming or difficult to correct errors
in new commitments in the external world. This is an area of human activity for the most experienced and strongest
personalities, with the right training. I do not recommend the use of these methods except under very controlled
and studied conditions with as near ideal as possible physical and social environment and as near ideal as
possible help from thoroughly trained empathicmatching persons. The subject's shortterm and longterm
welfare must control all actions, all speech, and all transactions between each pair of persons present,
unconsciously and consciously.
7. Behavioral, NonIsolation Replay of Protohuman Programs: The Problem of Repetitive Unconscious Replay.
Certain kinds of programs in the human computer, usually below the ordinary levels of awareness, are circular. The
circularity can be useful and needed, or misused (for example, in the maintenance of disparate and disturbing prog-
rams, L. Kubie 1939). A program in a certain patient says "Mother has abandoned baby, run to Daddy; Daddy beats
me and leaves; Mommy comforts me and leaves; Daddy loves me and hurts me and leaves. Run to Mommy.
Mommy has my sister, loves her, abandons me: run to Daddy; Daddy hurts. Daddy leaves. Run to Mommy. Mommy
leaves... Mother has abandoned baby, etc." Again and again. When the patient was a baby this was the one
important reality program; it became fixed, circular and carried into adulthood.
Such a program operates slowly or rapidly, and continuously. In the adult the real situation in the e.r. (external
reality) cannot halt the circular program. Usually modeling in the reality is preeminent over such circularity. In this
circular case, the e.r. is used to facilitate playback and maintain the strength of this old model program. Any impor-
tant man or woman in the e.r. must, somehow, be made to fit into this "ancient model" program. An external obser-
ver sees a person with such a program repeating an unhappy pattern again and again over the years. The under-
lying perpetuated baby program is unavailable for inspection, replay and breaking of circularity by the owner as an
adult.
At high doses LSD25 reduces the relative strength of the e.r. program by enhancing the strength of other programs.
(This occurs with 200 to 400 micrograms, and starts in the first hour and can continue for four or more hours). LSD 25
can increase the strength of and activate basic models in storage; it also allows the selfmetaprogramming orders
(orders stored just before the LSD25 maximum effect starts) to be carried out. Strong circular programs if present are
likely to be replayed. The selfobserver participates in the replay, but once again is programmed as relatively weak
with respect to the replay program as he was as a baby or child at the time of the implanting episodes in the e.r.
The external observer then sees a dramatic, repeat performance, again and again, of new replays.
Each replay is slightly different and gives the outside observer the feeling of a circular course not quite exactly
repeating each time. The emotion expressed at first has all the desperate panic of the child; gradually the spectrum
of intense emotion can be experienced and expressed progressively. With proper e.r., personnel, and responses
from them, progress leads the circle gradually out of negative feelings into the regions of good feelings; the fear and
other negative emotions are stripped off the circular program; good feelings are attached to replay; the self finally
can see it operate with its new emotion and (possibly for the first time) examine its newly charged (positive) structure
as it replays; reduce its importance on the unconscious priority list; and file it as a relic of childhood in the (inope-
rative or weakly operating) "history" file.
For a time, the self then feels free, cleaned out. The strength gained can be immense; the energy freed is double:
the fight with the circular program is temporarily gone. Not only is the energy of self no longer absorbed in the fight
but new program energy is available. For a short time, energy taken from the old circular program and the energy
formerly expended in the fight may be available. So twice the energy of the circular program can be made available
for use by the selfmetaprogram in constructing new energy relations between desired programs directed toward
ideals, aims, and goals. Adult love and sharing consonant with aspirations and reality (outside) gain strength and
gain differentiation of response and of interlocks. Humor appears in abundance, good humor. Beauty is enhanced,
the bodily appearance becomes youthful, with increased smiles and goodnatured puns and jokings at a deep level of
understanding and perspective. The babyish and the childish aspects of self are converted to adulthood with great
strength of character, integrity, and loving. These positive effects can last as long as two to four weeks before
reassertion of the old program takes place.
Each part of each level has feedbackcontrol relations with each part, indicated by the connecting lines. Each level
has feedbackcontrol with each other level. For the sake of schematic simplicity, many of these feedback connections
are not shown. One example is an important connection between Levels Vl through IX and X; some builtin, survival
programs have a representative at the Supra Self metaprogram Level as follows: "These programs are necessary for
survival; do not attenuate or excite them to extreme values; such extremes lead to noncomputed actions, penalties,
illness, or death." After construction, such a Metaprogram is transferred by the Selfmetaprogram to the Supraself-
metaprograms and to the Supraspeciesmetaprograms for future control purposes.
(Note: See text and glossary for definitions of terms used).
The boundaries between the body and the external reality are between Levels I and II; certain energies and mate-
rials pass this boundary in special places (heat, light, sound, food, secretions, feces. Boundaries between body and
brain are between Levels II and III; special structures pass this boundary (blood vessels, nerve fibers, cerebro-spinal
fluid). Levels IV through Xl are in the brain circuitry and are the software of the Biocomputer. Levels above Level X
are labeled Unknown" for the following purposes: (1) to maintain the openness of the system, (2) to motivate future
scientific research, (3) to emphasize the necessity for unknown factors at all levels, (4) to point out the heu-ristic
nature of this schema, (5) to emphasize unwillingness to subscribe to any dogmatic belief without testable
reproducible data, and (6) to encourage creative courageous imaginative investigation of unknown influences on and
in human realties, inner and outer.
8. Basic Effects of LSD25 on the Biocomputer: Noise as the Basic Energy for Projection Techniques.
In the analysis of the effects of LSD25 on the human mind, a reasonable hypothesis states that the effect of these
substances on the human computer is to introducewhite noise (in the sense of randomly varying energy containing
no signals of itself) in specific systems in the computer. These systems and the partition of the noise among them
vary with concentration of substance and with the substance used.
One can thus "explain" the apparent speedup of subjective time; the enhancement of colors and detail in perceptions
of the real world; the production of illusions; the freedom to make new programs; the appearance of visual projec-
tions onto mirror images of the real face and body; the projections and apparent depth in colored and in black and
white photos; the projection of emotional expression onto other real persons; the synesthesia of music to visual
projections; the feeling of "oneness with the universe"; apparent ESP effects; communications from "beings other
than humans"; the lowered Clozeanalysis scores by outside scorers; the clinical judgment of the outside observer
of dissociation psychosis, depersonalization, hallucination, and delusion in regard to the subject; the apparent
increased muscular strength, and the dissolution and rebuilding of programs and metaprograms by self and by the
outside therapist, etc.
The increase in white noise energy allows quick and random access to memory and lowers the threshold to
unconscious memories (expansion of consciousness).In such noise one can project almost anything at almost any
cognitive level in almost any allowable mode: one dramatic example is the conviction of some subjects of hearing-
seeingfeeling God, when "way out." One projects one's expectations of God onto the white noise as if the noise
were signals; one bears the voice of God in the Noise. With a bit of proper programming under the right conditions,
with the right dose, at the right time, one can program almost anything into the noise within one's cognitive limits; the
limits are only one's own conceptual limits, including limits set by one's repressed, inhibited, and forbidden areas of
thought. The latter can be analyzed and freed up using the energy of the white noise in the service of the ego, i.e., a
metaprogram analyze yourself can be part of the instructions to be carried out in the LSD 25 state.
The noise introduced brings a certain amount of disorder with it, even as white noise in the physical world brings
randomness. However, the LSD25 noise randomizes signals only in a limited way: not enough to destroy all order,
only enough to superimpose a small creative "jiggling" on program materials and metaprograms and their signals.
This noisy component added to the usual signals in the circuits adds enough uncertainty to the meanings to
make new interpretations more probable. If the noise becomes too intense, one might expect it to wipe out
information and lead to unconsciousness (at very high levels, death).
The major operative principle seems to be that the human computer operates in such a way as to make signals
out of noise and thus to create information out of random energies where there was no signal; this is the
"projection principle"; noise is creatively used in nonnoise models. The information "created" from the noise can be
shown by careful analysis to have been in the storage system of the computer, i.e., the operation of projection
moves information out of storage into the perception apparatus so that it appears to originate in the chosen "outside"
noisily excited system. Demonstrations of this principle are multiferous: in a single mode, listening to a real acoustic
physical white noise in profound isolation in solitude one can hear what one wants (or fears) to hear, human voices
talking about one, or one's enemies discussing plans, etc. With LSD 25 one can use two modes: one can listen to
white noise (including very low frequencies) and see desired (or feared visions projected on the blank screen of
one's closed eyes. One can, in profound isolation (water suspension, silence, darkness, isothermal skin, etc., in
solitude) detect the noise level of the mind itself and use it for cognitional projections rather than senseorgandata
projections. Instead of seeing or hearing the projected data, one feels and thinks it. This is one basis of the mis-
take by certain persons of assuming that the projected thoughts come from outside one's own mind, i.e., oneness
with the universe, the thoughts of God in one, extraterrestrial beings sending thoughts into one, etc. Because of the
lack of sensory stimuli, and lack of normal inputs into the computer (lack of energy in the reality program), the space
in the computer usually used for the projection of data from the senses (and hence the external world) is available
substitutively for the display of thinking and feeling.
As was stated by Von Foerster ("BioLogic," 1962):
"The occurrence of such spontaneous errors is far from an uncommon event. Conservative estimates suggest about
1014 elementary operations per second in a single human brain. If we can believe the recent work of Hyden (1960)
and Pauling (1961), these operations are performed on about 1021 molecules. From stability considerations (Von
Foerster, 1948) we may estimate that per second from 109 to 1011 molecules will spontaneously change their
quantum state as a result of the tunnel effect. This suggests that from 103 to 101% of all operations in the brain are
afflicted with an intrinsic noise figure which has to be taken care of in one way OF another." And further (same
reference):
… "The beginning of our century saw the fallacy of our progenitors in their trust in a fixed number of m propositions.
This number constantly grows with new discoveries which add new variables to our system of knowledge. In this
connection it may amuse you that in order just to keep the logical strength of our wisdom from slipping, the ratio of
the rate of coalescing, k, to the rate of discovery, m, must okay the inequality (k/m) >= k * ln 2
I have the feeling that today, with our tremendous increase in experimental techniques, m is occasionally so large
that the above inequality is not fulfilled, and we are left with more riddles than before.
"To this frustration to reach perfect truth we, children of the second half of the twentieth century, have added another
doubt. This is the suspicion that noise may enter the most effective coalition, flipping an established 'false' into a
deceptive 'true,' or, what might be even worse, flipping an irrelevant 'true' into an unwarranted 'false."'
GROWTH HYPOTHESIS
1. One major biological effect of LSD25 may be a selective effect on growth patterns in the CNS. Some parts of the
CNS are thought to be specifically accelerated in their local growth patterns, i.e., the systems which are selectively
active during the LSD25 state.
2. For these postulated growth effects there is an optimal concentration of the substance in the brain. With less
concentration than the optimal there is merely an irritating stimulation of the CNS (below the levels of awareness). At
the optimal concentration (in the nontolerant state) the phenomena of the LSD25 state occur. This is a phase of
initiation of new growth in the CNS. [This phase is a state of mind analogous to that presumed to exist in the very
young human (possibly beginning in the fetus or embryo)]
3. If additional material is administered, prolongation of this phase can be achieved within certain limits. With the
maintenance of the optimal concentration of substance, this phase is prolonged (hours) until tolerance develops.
4. The phase of developed tolerance is thought to be (in addition to other things) the phase of the completion of the
fast new growth. Most of the new biochemical and neurological connections are completed.
5. If continuous maintenance of optimal concentration for many hours (and days) after this initial phase is then
achieved, growth may continue slowly.
6. The growth is not thought to be confined to the central nervous system. The autonomic nervous system may grow
also.
7. If the optimal concentration is exceeded, the substance excites a "stress syndrome" (i.e., adrenalvascular, G.l.
tract, etc). (This syndrome is separate from theaffective results of the LSD25 state which in certain individuals can
cause a stress syndrome. I am not speaking of such individuals. I am speaking of more sophisticated observers who
have beenthrough the necessary and sufficient experiences to be able avoid a stress syndrome in the LSD 25 state.)
8. At concentrations above the optimal there can be a reversal of the beneficial effects in the induced stress
syndrome. Antigrowth factors are stimulated. Homeostasis is thus assured in the organism. A similar phenomenon
can be seen with negative programming during the LSD25 experience. Reversal of growth may be programmed in
by the selfprogrammer, unconscious metaprograms, or by the outside therapist or other persons.
9. At concentrations above optimal the resulting stress syndrome is programmed into the autonomic nervous system
and continues (beyond the time of the presence of the substance) to repeat itself until reprogrammed out days
or weeks later.
10. At levels above optimal, the selfmetaprogram loses energy and circuitry to autonomous programs; the ego
disappears at very high levels.
This complex series of relations shows the delicate nature of the best state for remetaprogramming and of remeta-
programming itself. Until sophisticated handling (of these substances, the selfmetaprogram, the person, the setting,
the preparation, etc.) can be achieved, careful voluntary education of professional personnel should be done, and
done carefully with insight. Selection of persons for training must be diplomatic and tactful; it is a strategy to be
carried out cooperatively without publicity. Candor and honesty at deep levels is a prime requisite.
9. Summary of Basic Theory and Results for Metaprogramming the Positive States with LSD 25
1. LSD25 facilitates the positive (reward, positive reinforcement) systems in the CNS. (Tables 48, 10 and Figs. 39)
2. LSD25 inhibits the negative (punishment, negative reinforcement) systems in the CNS. (Tables 49 and Fig. 9)
3. LSD25 adds noise at all levels, decreasing many thresholds in the CNS. (Table 2 and Fig. 9)
4. The apparent strengths of programs below the usual levels of awareness increase. (Figs. 35 and 9)
5. Programmability of metaprograms (suggestibility) increases, allowing more programming by the selfmetaprogram
and external sources [hypersuggestibility of H. Bernheim (1888), Clark Hull (1933).] (Fig. 9)
6. The continuous positive state (positive reinforcement, reward, pleasure) plus inhibited negative system activity
causes increased positive reinforcement of the following:
a. self
b. one's own thinking
c. thinking introduced by others
d. other persons
e. the given environment (r.r.)
f. any given patterned complex input (i.e., music, paintings, photos, etc.). (Tables 9 and 10 and Fig. 9)
7. Subsequent to exposure, the effects fall off slowly over a two to sixweeks period, during which period there is
overvaluation of 6 (af). Residual effects can be detected up to one year.
8. Repeated exposures at weekly to biweekly periods for several months (years) maintain the above reinforcements
if the above conditions, inputs and outputs can be reproduced. There is reinforcement of the positive reinforcements
until the usual state before LSD25 becomes negative.
The phenomenon of "computerinterlock" facilitates mutual model construction and operation, each of the other. One
biocomputer interlocks with one or more other biocomputers above and below the level of awareness any time the
communicational distance is sufficiently small to bring the interlock functions above threshold levels.
In the complete physical absence of other external biocomputers within the critical interlock distance, the selfdirected
and otherdirected programs can be clearly detected, analyzed, recomputed, reprogrammed, and new metaprograms
initiated by the solitudinous biocomputer itself. In the ascompletelyaspossibleattenuatedphysicalreality environment in
solitude, a maximum intensity, a maximum complexity and a maximum speed of reprogramming is achievable by the
self.
In the field of scientific research such a computer can function in many different ways, from the pure austere thought
processing of theory and mathematics, to the almost random data absorption of the naturalistic approach with newly
found systems or to the coordinated interlocks with other human biocomputers of an engineering effort.
At least two extreme major kinds of methods of data collection and analysis exist for individual scientists the arti-
ficially created, controlledelement, inventeddevisedsystem methods; and the participantobserver interacting intimately
experientially with naturally given elements with nonhuman (or human) biocomputers as interacting parts of the
system. The first kind is the current basis of individual physicalchemical research, the latter kind is one basis for
individual explorative first discovery research with largebrained (cf. human size) organisms. Sets of human moti-
vational and procedural postulates for the interlock method of research with and on beings with biocomputers as
large and larger than the human biocomputers are sought. Some of the methods sought are those of establishing
long periods (months, years) of humantoother organisms biocomputer interlock of a quality and value sufficiently high
to merit interspecies communication efforts on both sides at an intense and dedicated, highlystructured level.
RETREATS FROM INTERLOCK
Some human scientists faced with nonhuman species who have braincomputers equal to or larger than their own,
retreat from responsibilities of interlock research into a set of beliefs peculiar to manual, manipulating, bipedal,
featherless, recording, dry, airvocalizing, cooperatingintraspecies, lethalpredatory-dangerous, virtuousselfimage,
powerfulimmature, ownspecies-worshipping primates, with 1400 gram brains.
Specifically, human scientists faced with dolphins (with 1800 gram brains) retreat into several safe cognitive areas,
out of contact with the dolphins themselves. The commonest evasion of contact is the assumption of a human a
priori knowledge of what constitutes "scientific research on dolphins," i.e., a limited philosophical, speciesspecific,
closedconcept system.
Common causes of retreat are too great fear of the dolphin's large size, of the sea, of going into water, of the
Tropics, of cold water, etc. Another safe retreat is into the let's see what happens if we do this or the experimental
"mucking around" region. Years can be spent on this area with no interlock achieved; successful evasion is thus
continued endlessly.
Increasingly and frequently scientists are trying the let's pretend we are nonexistent (to the dolphins) observers and
do a peeping Tom through under water windows on them, commonly called an "ethological approach." This activity
also evades interlock research quite successfully.
Other cognitive traffic control devices to evade the responsibilities of close contact are appearing about as rapidly as
each additional kind of scientist enters the arena with the dolphins: icthyologists, zoologists, comparative psycholo-
gists, anthropologists, ethologists, astronomers each has had at least one representative of his field approach
dolphins. Each one thinks up good and sufficient reasons for not continuing interlock research and not devoting his
personal resources and those of his scientific field to suchfarout, nonapplied, longterm, basic research. Non scientist
type persons also approach; most leave with similar sophistries. A few stay. Some who stay have an exploitative
gleam in their eye: dollargleam, militaryapplicationgleam, self-aggrandizementgleam. Some persons stay because of
a sense of wonder, awe, reverence, curiosity, and an intuitive feel of dolphins themselves.
The dolphin respecting (not dolphinloving) persons (scientists or not) are the potential interlock group sought; dedica-
tion to dolphinhuman interlock without evasions is a difficult new profession. The persons I know in this class are
few, as of 1965. The few need help: facilities, assistance of the right sorts, privacy, few demands of other kinds,
money, cognitive and intellectual backup, encouragement, enlightened discussions, and, of course, dolphins. This is
currently a necessarily lonely profession.
4*Lilly, J. C. 1967; Lilly, J. C., Alice M. Miller and Henry M. Truby, 1968. l. A. S. A. 43: 1412-1424.97
sudden willingness to participate at all levels effectively is generated and used as the computer is cleared of of
unreasonable circular feedback programs below the level of awareness. This is at the human end of the system.
At the otherspecies end of the system, the selection of individuals for interlock is more hit or miss. We catch
dolphins in the wild; we don't know how they select (if they do select) the group for us to catch. There seems to be
some selection going on: most of the individuals we have worked with have none of our unconscioushostility,
unconsciousfear programs in their computers; at least not in the hands of our people in the Institute. * Rarely are
very old ones caught.
It may be that dolphins in general cannot afford waste of the unconscious circuitry for such useless programs as
hostilityfear-tointelligentotherindividuals. The conditions for their survival in the wild require the utmost in fast and
unequivocal cooperation and interlock with one another. The exigencies of airbreathing, of sharks, of storms, of
bacterial diseases, of viral illnesses, of man's depredations, and of other factors require exuberance and whole-
hearted participation (intraspecies) from each and every individual. Failure to interlock because of fear, hostility or
other inner preoccupations leads to quick death and nonpropagation of that type of computer.
Dolphins, correctly approached, seek interlock with those humans who are secure enough to openly seek them (at
all levels) in the sea water.
With dolphins there are possible and probable interlock channels for humans. Anatomical differences limit the
channels, as do human social taboos. Given a human with minimal inhibitions, the necessary sensitivity, skills in the
water, courage, dedication, correct programming, and the necessary surrounds and support, there are many
channels: soundproductionhearing; muscular actiontactilepressurereception; presenceactionseeing; sexual channels;
feedingeating; and such metachannel problems as initiative in use, crosschannel relations simultaneously with
intrachannel control of signals, kinds of signals which can and cannot be decoded into information at each end, etc.
One channel we have disciplined ourselves and the dolphins to pursue is the airborne vocal and hearing one.* In
this channel we have found a clue to progress in the other channels if one is to be convincing in regard to
showing a program and metaprogram wish to communicate, one mimics the other end's signals even though
(temporarily) the signals make no sense, and one insists on having one's own signals mimicked on the same
basis. This leads to mimicry of our swimming patterns by the dolphins, for example, when we have mimicked theirs.
Mimicry seems to be one program for demonstrations of the present state of the model of the dolphin in us and of us
in the dolphin. The adequacy of the functioning of the human in the mandolphin interlock is measured by the feed-
back represented by mimicry. The mechanism is similar if not identical to that of a human child mimicking adult use
of words (silent5ly or vocally) not yet in the child's "storage" and "use" programs.
5*Communication Research Institute, Miami, Florida and St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands.99
of basic assumptions. Beyond these assumptions are those of the proper selection of participants, support, interest
in the scientific community, and cooperation on an operating contributing level by openminded professionals. 6
For the sake of clarity the following presentation of the logic employed in this paper is given.
It is quite apparent that there is at least a fourvalue logic employed. There are the usual 'true' and 'false' values; in
addition there is another pair which in a shorthand way can be called 'as if true' and 'as if false.' Each of these four
values can be applied to the external reality and to the internal reality of the human biocomputer.
The notation employed is as follows for the external reality applications, 'true' and 'false' are rewritten without quotes.
'As if true' and 'as if false' are written with an asterisk ahead of the true and ahead of the false (*true, *false). For the
internal realities situation, i.e., the occurrence of these values in the software of the human biocomputer, double
quotation marks are placed around "true," "false," "as if true" and "as if false," ("*true" and "*false").
Externally checkable, observable reality, i.e., with external proof, uses the value system: true, false, *true and *false.
In the internal reality, i.e., in the area of internal judgment, internal belief, in the selfmetaprogrammer, the values are
symbolized with quotation marks, "true" and "false" "*true" "*false."
In the internal reality case, for each of these values, there is a metaprogram which can be stated as follows: "define
as true (or false) a given metaprogram." (In the main body of the paper this is a basic belief for survival, for ex-
ample.) A less intense metaprogram is "defined as if true a given metaprogram or defined as if false a given meta-
program." In the experiments on basic beliefs, "if defined as "true" then the metaprogram is "true" within limits to be
determined," and "if defined "*true" then "true" within limits to be determined."
These various values may be modified with a judgment of their probability and with the defining of the desired
intensity. The probability scale is 1.0 for absolutely certain, a gradation of probability down to the value O which is
improbable and to 1 for impossible. Such values are applied to each of the four logic categories with regard to a
specific metaprogram.
Such a logic system can be seen operating in the external human reality in coalitions of various sorts. A coalition
can function 'as if an internal judgment' in the sense that it defines certain things as "true" which are then true within
limits to be determined. The usual structure of human law seems to share this property. The concept ofconsensus
wisdom (Galbraith) includes this logic system.
There are certain metaprograms and programs which have an imperative, externallyproven truthfalsity relationship
which cannot be manipulated within the human biocomputer without danger to its existence. These metaprograms
and programs can be considered as imperatives from some parts of the program level of the human biocomputer
which must function as supraselfmetaprograms (i.e., there must be recognition of the "built-in," "necessary for
survival nature" of these programs).
(4.0) Questions:
I. Does 3.1 record , , or 2.1 record?
II. Does subjective life during 3.0 , , or 2.0 interval? (See IX below.)
III. Is there memory of 2.0 during 3.0? Afterwards?
IV. Are 3.0 and 2.0 remembered as two time periods and event sequences?
V. Does psychophysical testing with objective records during 3.0 give identical results to same tests (using same
time course) during 2.0? (Word test programmed on tapes with step distortions below the threshold for step
detection, etc.)
VI. Other than (la) need we store anything else? What about (a) membrane potential of each cell? (b) variations of
M.P. over dendritic tree? (c) local concentrations of serotonin, norepinephrine, etc.? (d) previous history of firings for
how long before chosen 1/2hour period? (e) blood levels of critical substances? (f) glial activities and concentration
of substances?
VII. Other than 1b need we control anything else? (See VI list of factors.)
VIII. Are 1a and 1b enough to specify and control, or does molecular signal storage introduce a measure of control
independent of neuron firing?
IX. Does such detailed control of neuron firing give control of (a) program level and (b) metaprogram level, or is
there another set of controlling variables and parameters?
X. Does this proposed system give control of (a) selfmetaprogram and (b) supraselfmetaprogram levels? Does this
system function as an absolute supraselfmetaprogram?15. Metaprogramming the Body Image
Some of the most deeply entrenched and earliest acquired metaprograms are those of the personal body image of
the human biocomputer. Among the programs of importance here are those of posture, walking stance, sitting
patterns, lying down patterns and body posture during sleep. This metaprogramming interdigitates with that for
acquired muscular skills of every sort, including writing, running, skiing, sports such as tennis, swimming, and so
forth. These metaprograms also interdigitate with those of the use of the body during highly emotional states such as
angry outbursts, sexual activities (both alone and with a partner), fright and flight patterns, and so forth.
The selfmetaprogram feeds back on itself through the external body image seen in a mirror and through
proprioceptive and postural feedbacks.
To investigate the proprioceptive and muscle tension aspects of the body image requires deep probing of programs
combined with attempts to push every joint of the body beyond the limitations set by the current selfmetaprogram.
During such maneuvers to increase the range of motion at specific joints, one quickly discovers the joint capsules
and muscles themselves have assumed anatomical limits which attenuate the range of possible motion at these
joints. This is particularly true of the spinal joints and the pelvic joints (with the spine and with the femur). Similar
considerations apply to the rib cage and the thoracic spine, the cirvical spine, as well as, the limb joints. By daily
repeated regimes of reprogramming of the muscles and thejoints, it is possible to begin to modify these entrenched
programs.
During the primary state of LSD* it is possible to program in positive system activity during such exercises. Under
these conditions the net effect of such stretchings and muscle exercises can be a positive system excitation and
reinforcement of the new patterns. During the LSD state it has been noticed that the activities of the negative
systems are attenuated and thus allow a greater range of muscle and joint stretching than without the LSD. It has
also been noticed that it is possible to contract the desired muscles more fully in this state than during the usual
state. Caution must be observed, however, because it is now possible to contract muscles to the point where
muscles, joint capsules, ligaments, and tendons can be strained leaving residual, unpleasant local pains after the
LSD primary state is ended.
During such exercises in the LSD state, it is possible to detect (by looking at the body image in a mirror during such
exercises) the supraselfmetaprograms for the body image, both the positive and the negative ones. One can see the
negative metaprogram, for example, as the projection of an aged and crippled body assumed to be too old to be
capable of changing the body image. A positive projected metaprogram for example is that of an athletic young
figure.
Certain kinds of negative attenuation and zeroingout metaprograms are connected with pelvic movements. If there is
a supraselfmetaprogram directed against the movements of sexual intercourse, these are reflected in body posture
and in the range of use of the pelvis in other activities. Such metaprograms can be detected in the projected images
(placed upon the mirror image of the body itself) by watching the posture of the projected 7image and the range of
programmable functional movements of the pelvis. The imagined dangers of sexual mating can be seen by the
failure of this set of images to go through the full ranges of such motions. Reprogramming such antimetaprograms
requires the real body to go through the "forbidden" movements in order to investigate the antimetaprograms. In
general this requires more or less extreme exaggeration of the real body rnovements in order to break through the
inhibitory aspects of the undesired metaprogram. Each individual will vary from others in the essential details, even
as their rnetaprograms vary. A certain willingness to experience that which is feared most is absolutely essential as
a basic metaprogram in order to achieve the new programming.
Cautions, once again, are in order here to avoid the narcissistic-selfworshippingevasion of reprogramming in this
area. The new areas of experience opened up can be rather seductive of themselves, because of the enhanced
positive system activity during the LSD state. The necessity for regression and regrowth from times at which the
natural developments were stopped can lead to further sticking of the metaprogramming at an earlier age on
hedonistic grounds. Additional supraselfmetaprograms insisting on a natural evolution of the selfmetaprogram
towards a desired set of ideal metaprograms is necessary here to assure progress.
In older persons with welldeveloped characters these dangers are not as pressing as they are in younger subjects.
However, the selfmetaprograms involving the body image are also more entrenched in the older persons. More
energy and dedication to the task at hand are needed in the older persons.
In those in whom obesity has become a problem, it is necessary to reduce the body weight to a more ideal level
while these exercises in remetaprogramming of the body image are being carried out. In other words, it is necessary
to carry out those real dietary and exercise instructions which lead to a real externally better body in the sense of
physical health. Such a regime can reduce the probability of the onset of the typical
diseases of old age, and with increasing health and activity, the remetaprogramming becomes more rewarding.
One metaprogram which has been worked out in great detail which may be of help to some persons is the set of
exercises and dietary rules commonly called Yoga. These exercises assure new areas of stretching and new areas
of breathing exercises which can enhance the physiologic functions of lungs and gut tract, as well as somatic
musculature, joints, bones, and posture. In many ways these exercises assure adequate massage of the heart and
blood vessels in such a way as to increase their activity along healthy lines. It may be that one can reduce the
probability of a coronary attack, angina pectoris, and similar problems of the aged. Obviously other organs are also
participating including liver, kidneys, spleen, and so forth.
In obesity the panniculus adiposus, the large fat store in the omentum and in the mesentery, severely limit functions
of all of the viscera and limit the amount of stimulation that can be given these organs through such exercise. Such
large fat reservoirs also require very large amounts of circulation of their own and hence require an increase in blood
pressure to force that circulation.
Thus the external changes in the body image arereflected in internal changes throughout the body, in a
selfreinforcing manner.
7*Experiments with dextroamphetamine in doses from 40200 mgs show similar positively reinforcing pleasurable use
of muscles, joints, posture-changes, etc., and inhibition of negatively reinforcing painful effects for several hours.
Brain Models
TABLE 1
VIEWS OF ORGANISM: MODELS
1. Physicalchemical to quantum mechanical
2. Physiological (structure and function)
3. Modern psychological (behavior)
4. Classical psychological (psyche)
5. Evolutionary (origins of life and species)
6. Social, anthropological (prehistorical, historical, current)
7. Nonhuman intelligences
8. Religious, mystical (suprahuman entities)
VIEWS OF ORGANISM: MODELS
1. Physicalchemical: series of millisecond to microsecond frozen micropictures of patterns of neuronal activity,
biochemical reserves, physicalchemical flows, energy-forcematerial exchange with outside sourcessinks;
repeatability, reliability, signal/noise relations.
2. Physiological: partial integratedovertime pictures of physical patterns: net results over seconds to days to years.
Organism vs. environment generation of actions, signals.
3. Modern psychological: selection of certain aspects of physical physiological data and models which show
properties of modifiability, CNS model making, model comparison, storage, learning, memory, physchophysical .
4. Classical psychological: mental, subjective, inside view, psychoanalytic, solipsistic, egocentered, personal models.
5. Evolutionary: gradual formation of basic physicalchemical units into organic particles, cells, organisms; formation
of genetic codes and cytoplasmic orders; increasing sizes of cellular aggregations; formation of species; changes to
new species; evolution of CNS; evolution of man from anthropoids; origins of speech.
6. Social, anthropological
7.
TABLE 3
KINDS OF "STIMULI"
1. Physical specifications: endorgans: kind and amount, timing, patterning of energy
2. Physiological specifications: neuronal: threshold values, patterns of neuron excitation (kind, place, impulses/
second)
3. Central nervous system specification: number of excited neurons, where, what impulse frequencies; buildup of
central state in what systems, its kind.
TABLE 4
KINDS OF "RESPONSES"
1. Patterned musculoskeletal: (A) Starting a feedback pattern with apparatus or with another organism (B) Stopping
a feedback pattern
2. Patterned CNSbiochemical states generating musculoskeletal responses: (A) Neutral (B) Net rewarding (C) Net
punishing (D) Net ambivalent
FIGURE 2
TABLE 5
KINDS OF CENTRAL STATES
( O ) Sleeping
( 1 ) Neutral
( 2 ) Activated
( 3 ) Inhibited
1.( 4 ) Rewarding
( 5 ) Punishing
( 6 ) Disinhibited
1.( 7 ) Integrative
( 8 ) Ambivalent
TABLE 6
PLACES IN CNS FOR "CENTRAL STATES
1.Sleep system
2.Afferent projection systems
3.Efferent projection systems
4.Primary activation systems
5.Primary inhibition systems
6.Reward systems
7.Punishment systems
8.Integration systems
9.Pattern storage systems
10.Programming systems
TABLE 7
FEEDBACK "CAUSES " IN CENTRAL STATES
1. Patterns of immediate results of outside stimuli (strength, place, timing).
2. Patterns of immediate results of responses.
3. Stored integrated consequences patterns.
4. Continuous current cortical integration of selected past stored patterns and current results of
outside stimuli and responses.
5. Cellular biochemical states of storagedepletion of specific substances in specific sites reserves available in body.
6. Specific CNS biochemical states locally.
1.Builtin programs
TABLE 8
INTERLOCK: EXTERNAL REALITY PROGRAM SYSTEMS
1. Afferent
2. Efferent
3. Reticular modulating _
4. Positive system phasing
5. Negative system phasing
6. Cortical storage and programming
7. Builtin programs
TABLE 9
NARCISSISTIC STATES through electrical stimulation of the brain, drugs, programming, and isolation: basic factors
are:
1. Prolonged hyperactivie (+) systems.
2. Hypoactivity () systems.
3. Attenuation of external stimuli, responses, transactions.
TABLE 10
"CONVULSIONS" OF ORGASMLIKE TYPE If convulsion (behaviorally seen) includes prolonged hyperactivity of (+)
systems, convulsions act as positive reinforcement with increased seeking and repetitions of ways of repeating the
experience. (Dostoyevsky, Bickford, Sem-Jacobsen, Lilly).
FIGURE 6
A LARGE FRACTION OF THE BRAIN HAS STIMULABLE ELEMENTS WHICH GIVE CONDITIONABLE
RESPONSES TO LOCAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION AT LOW LEVELS
1. Neocortex Projection systems (visual, acoustic, sensorimotor)-present, now
2. PaleoArcheocortexfixed, old patterns
3. Striatemixed projection, positivenegative
4. Hypothalamusseptum and mesencephalon positive and negativepresent
FIGURE 7
MOTIVATIONAL HIERARCHY OF CNS INSTRUCTIONS
(BRADY)
Most (+)
Lat. Hypothalamus
Ant. Med. Forebrain Bundle
Orbitofrontal Cortex
Amyagdala (cf. Powell et al.)
Least (+)
Entorhinal Cortex
Neutral (0)
Septal Area
Negative ()
Fornix
FIGURE 8
Positive (+) & Negative (-) Systems:
Short vs. Long Train Effects
Positive
Neocortexlong
Hippocampuslong
Amygdalalong
Caudate Nshort
Lat. Hypothalamic Nshort
Med. Forebrain Bundleshort
Interpeduncular Nshort
Negative
Neocortexlong
Amygdalalong
Intralaminar Thal. Nshort
Med. Hypothalamic Nshort
Central Grayshort
FIGURE 1O
Single Zones in "Motor" Cortex
(Threshold Current, at 30 ma Second Train Durations)
*(Noncortical). Muscle response (to 1 pulse)
*"Move ". Muscle response (to train)
*"Stop ". Negative reinforcement threshold ("conditioned avoidance ")
*"Start ". Positive reinforcement threshold ("selfstimulation")
*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus ("detection")
FIGURE 11
Subcortical Nuclei "Positive" Zone
(Threshold Current (Short Trains))
*"Stop". (Spread to negative zone) muscle movements
*"Taming" "Gentling". Autonomic responses
* "Start ". Positive reinforcement "Self-stimulation"
*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus threshold
FIGURE 12
Single Zone in "Negative" Subcortical Nuclei
(Threshold Current (Ramp Schedule))
*"Escape" "Anger". Builtin somatic muscle patterns released
*"Fear". Autonomic responses
*"Stop". Negative reinforcement threshold ("conditioned avoidance")
*"Alerting". Conditional stimulus threshold
1. Communication: the process of the exchange of information between two or more minds
1a. Communication: the process of exchange of information between metaprogramming entities within two or more
computers.
2. Information: the calculated mental results of the reception of signals from another mind and the computed
composed context of the next reply to be formed into transmissible signals.
2a. Information: the data received, computed, and stored resulting from the reception of signals by a
metaprogramming entity from another computer and the computed data in the ready state in the same entity for
transmission to another computer through a similar set of signals.
3. Mind: the entity comprising all of the (at least potentially) selfdetectable processes in a brain which are at such a
level of program complexity as to be detected and at least potentially describable in programming language; the
selfmetaprograms within the brain.
3a. Mind: a form of metaprogram in the software set of a very large biocomputer which organizes metaprograms for
the purposes of selfprogramming and of communication.
3b. Mind: the computerbraindetectable portion of a supraphysical entity tied to the physicalbiological apparatus
the remainder of this entity is in the soulspiritGod region and is detectable only under special conditions.
4. Program: a set of internally consistent instructions for the computation of signals, the formation of information, the
storage of both, the preparation of messages, the logical processes to be used, the selection processes, and the
storage addresses all occurring within a biocomputer, a brain.
5. Metaprogram a set of instructions, descriptions, and means of control of sets of programs.
6. Selfmetaprogram: a special metaprogram which involves the selfprogramming aspects of the computer, which
creates new programs, revises old programs, and reorganizes programs and metaprograms. This entity works only
directly on the metaprograms, not the programs themselves; metaprograms work on each program and the detailed
instructions therein. Alternative names are set of selfmetaprograms, "selfmetaprogramming entity," or
the selfmetaprogrammer.
MAJOR METAPROGRAMS
1. External Reality Metaprogram
This metaprogram operates programs with interlock with the outsidebodysystems. These systems include all of
external reality; human beings are a defined part of the external reality.
This metaprogram seems to be absent only in special states and even then possibly is only relatively
attenuated, not completely absent. The states in which it is attenuated include sleep, coma, trance, anaesthesia,
etc.
The above states cause centrally conditioned reductions of the stimulation arriving from the external reality. It is also
possible to attenuate the external reality stimuli themselves.
In the profound physical isolation, external reality excitation of the CNS is attenuated to minimum possible levels in
all modes. If in profound physical isolation, one adds a metaprogrammatically active substance to the brain (such as
LSD25), further attenuation of the external reality stimuli can be achieved and the ego (selfmetaprogram) is more fully
activated. If in profound physical isolation one adds sleep, trance, or anaesthesia (light levels), these give external
reality cutoff and cessation of e.r. (external reality) excitation of the central nervous system (and of the "mind").
The external reality metaprogram is increased in its intensity in high excitation states; interlock with the external
reality can be increased by these means.
2. Selfmetaprograms
These metaprograms include all of those entities which are usually defined as ego, consciousness, self, and so forth.
The interlock of the selfmetaprograms with the external reality metaprograms can be attenuated by special
techniques including sleep, LSD25 plus isolation, anaesthesia, etc.
The apparent strength of these metaprograms can be enhanced in certain cased by LSD 25 plus dextroamphetamine,
psychic energizers, etc.
3. Storage Metaprograms
These metaprograms have two aspects: there is the active storage process in which the inputs from e.r. and from
self are connected to storage: there is the active output process in which the self is connected directly to storage. To
achieve these connections there are the search metaprograms. The nature of these programs varies depending
upon special conditions. It varies in free association states, hypnogogic states, dreaming states, etc. LSD25 and
similar agents allow a special state in which the selfmetaprograms can directly consciously explore much of the
storage itself. In this particular state the selfmetaprograms and the searchmetaprograms operate coextensively in
such a way as to reveal the innermost files of the storage directly to self.
4. Autonomic (Nervous System) Programs
The autonomic nervous system has builtin properties which are definitely programmatic rather than
metaprogrammatic. The relationships between these and the selfmetaprogram are second order. These autonomic
programs do not exist directly in selfmetaprograms. These programs include the programs for the gastrointestinal
tract, for sex, for anger, for fright, etc. These programs can be modified by the selfmetaprogram; once started their
detailed carryingout is automatic.
5. Body Maintenance Programs
These are programs which cut across the lines of the previous ones and include such consciousunconscious
programs as the needs and the carrying out of sleep, exercise, correct food, environmental temperature regulations,
clothing, etc. The realities of the body maintenance in the external reality are included in these programs.
6. FamilyLoveReproductionChildren Program
This is also an aspect of the external reality metaprogram and here is separated out as one of the basic programs
within that one.
Depending upon the individual computer there can be many more programs; some may be devised as above,
others cut across the above boundaries. Such divisions, in the last analysis, are artificial and reflect the
tendency of a human to think and act disintegrated into categories rather than as an integrated smoothly
operating holistic computer.
7. Survival Metaprograms
Survival Priorities are used in case of threat to structural and/ or functional integrity of the entities named the order
is that of relative importance in the sense that the one below in the list will be sacrificed, abandoned, penalized, or
changed in order to save, maintain, integrate, or educate the one above in the series.
A threat is defined as internal (mental) information (which when above threshold) anticipates and predicts immediate
or delayed destruction, mutilation, confinement, abandonment, damnation, ostracism, solution (lysis) of continuity,
compromised integrity, moral encroachment, severe ethical insult, voluntary seduction, unconscious entrancement,
slavery, etc.
In nonthreatening educative processes the listing is more flexible any entity may, for a time, be placed at the head of
the new list. This survival priorities list may remain intact in this order in the depths below awareness. It is evoked in
states of fatigue which begin to generate information above the threat threshold .
O. The Soulspirit this concept includes life after mortal death, reincarnation, the immortal entity, that which is
Godgiven, none of which is in current Science. This is currently considered by some persons as the most valuable of
all the available entities. Depending on the needs of the definer, this entity may be educable, may have higher
ethical strivings than current ones, may store information of certain kinds, may develop skills in certain areas, may
carry these capabilities within it to the next state after the current mortal physical reality is left, etc.
1. Egomind Entity: one's mind and mental self are valued above the body (and in those with the above religious
belief, below the soul).
2. Body it is obvious that one values one's body less than one's mental self; however, at times one can be forced to
act as if the list did not have this order but the opposite. Sometimes the mind shuts down, leaving the body to its
survival battle alone.
3. Lover starting with the prototypic father and mother models and moving to wife or husband models.
4. Child: one's own child.
5. Siblings.
6. Parents.
7. Valued friends.
8. Humans in general.
KEY TO CATEGORIES INFEFERENCES AND
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B study of certain literature in biology
C computers
H hypnosis
I psychiatry
L logic
M brain and mind models
N neuropsychopharmacology
O psychology
P psychoanalysis
T communication
References
(See also the Categorized Bibliography, page 145)
Category Page
U N 3 Bradley, P. B. and J. Elkes. 1953. "The Effect of
Amphetamine and DLysergic Acid Diethylamide
(LSD25) on the Electrical Activity of the Brain of
the Conscious Cat." j. Physiol. (London) 120:
13 p.
M* 3 Ashby, W. Ross. 1952. Design forBrain. John Wiley. l M 119 Brady, joseph V. 1960. "Temporal and Emotional
60 New York. 260 p. | Effects Related to Intracranial Electrical Self
M 3 . 1962. "What is Mind? Objective and Sub | Stimulation." Chapter 3 in Electrical Studies of tbe
jective Aspects in Cybernetics." Chapter in Theories | Unanestbetized Brain. Estelle R. Ramey and Des
of the Mind. Jordan M. Scher (ed.). The Free Press l mond S. O'Doherty, Ed. pp. 5277.
Of Greece, New York and Macmillan: New York, O 3 Bruner, Jerome S., Jacqueline J. Goodnow and
London. pp. 305313. GeorgeA.Austin. 1956.AStudyofTbinking.John
O 3 Bartlett, Sir Fredric. 1858. Tbinking. "An Experi Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York; Chapman & Hall,
mental and Social Study." Basic Books, Inc., Pub Ltd., London. 330 p.
Iishers, New York. 203 p. L xx Carnap, Rudolf. 1942. Introduction to Semantics.
I & M 3 Bateson, Gregory, Don D. jackson, Jay Haley, and 3 Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 256 p.
84 JohnWeakland. 1956. "TowardaTheoryofSchizo l L xx . 1943. Formalization of Logic. Harvard
phrenia." BehavioralSci.l: 251264. University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 159 p.
H 3 Bernheim, H. 1888. Hypnosis and Suggestion in Psy L xx . 1945. "Foundations of Logic and Math
9 cbotherapy. "A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of 3 ematics." Vol. l No. 3 Int'l. Encyclopedia of
75 Hypnotism." Translated from the 2nd revised ed. Unified Science. Vols. I & 11: Foundations of the
by C. A. Herter. 1964.University Books, New Hyde | Unity of Science. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Park, N. Y. 428 p. 111.
L 3 Birkhoff, Garrett and Saunders MacLane. 1948. A L xx . 1947. Meaning and Necessity. A Study in
Survey of Modern Algebra. The Macmillan Co., SemanticsandModalLogic. Univ of Chicago Press,
New York. 450 p. Chicaco, 111. 210 p.
B 3 Blakeman, J., Alice Lee and Karl Pearson. 1902. "A T 3 Cherry, Colin. 1957. On Human Communication. A
91 Study of the Biometric Constants of English Brain Review, A Survey, andA Crit*ism. TheTechnology
- Weights and Their Relationships to External Press of M.l.T. and john Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
Physical Measurement." Biometrica 4: 408467. York: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London. 333 p.
N 3 Blum, Richard and Associates. 1964. Utopiates. "The L 3 Churchman, C. West, Russell L. Ackoff and E. Leon
41 Use and Users of LSD25." Atherton Press, New ard Arnoff. 1957. Introduction to Operations Re
York. 303 p. searsb. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Lon
L xxvii Bourbaki, Nicholas. (pseud.) 1957. Scientific Ameri don. 645 p.
3 can. May. p.88. H 3 Clark, John Howard (U.K.) 1967. "The Structure of
N 3 Bradley, P. B., C. Elkes and J. Elkes. 1953. "On Some Hypnotic Procedure." 5th International Congress
Effects of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD25) in on Cybernetics. 1115 Sept. 1967. Namur, Brux
Normal Volunteers." J. Physiol. (London). 121: elles, Belgium.
50 p. M 117 Clements, Betty G., John W. Bossard and Reginald G.
Bickford. 1957. "Auras of Pain and Pleasure (sound
,t motion picture of recording of seizures in two
See key to categories, page 135.
patients.)" EEG and Clin. Neurophysiol. 9. Abst. 36 1 12:571